Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 March 7 March >

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 delete. Despite the valiant efforts of a number of sock- and/or meatpuppets, Mr. Giliberti has not been shown to pass the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Giliberti[edit]

Davide Giliberti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP, written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a person who has potentially valid notability claims but isn't sourcing them properly. The referencing here is almost entirely to blogs and primary sources rather than to reliable source coverage in media -- and the only thing here that does count as a reliable source is not about him, but merely namechecks his existence briefly in coverage of something else. As well, this was created by a user named "PasqualeGiliberti", and therefore likely a direct conflict of interest (maybe a brother or cousin? maybe his own middle name? etc.) -- and in addition, Pasquale copied and pasted it directly from a draftspace page without submitting it for the WP:AFC review needed to actually graduate it to mainspace. It can continue to be improved in draftspace if possible -- but there's not enough sourcing here to get it a mainspace pass, and there's not enough "inherent" notability here to exempt him from the sourcing requirements. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that the article creator also tried to blank this AFD and to remove the template from the article entirely. As always, this is not legitimate Wikipedia process — the creator is allowed to express an opinion in the discussion, but does not have the right to unilaterally shut the process down in advance of a conclusion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
even if i could be one of his relative i don't see where is the problem if everything is proved and doesn't affect any other article or the truth of the events describes in it. Yes i could be simply an homonym but you don't even consider it as good to leave the article or at least to contribute for the editing.PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our conflict of interest rules militate against people writing articles about themselves, their own relatives or friends, their own business endeavours, and on and so forth. We're not an advertising platform, and people tend to not be objective about themselves and their own professional and personal associations — so our articles need to be written by people fully independent of the topic, not by the subject or his brother. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This article already has been approved on wikipedia Italy respecting the general common rules for wikipedia, is impartial and based on real sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by PasqualeGiliberti (talk • contribs) — PasqualeGiliberti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Firstly, being "approved" on one language Wikipedia does not constitute an automatic approval on all language Wikipedias — for one thing, I can find no evidence that its suitability for inclusion on the Italian Wikipedia has ever been discussed at all, rather than it simply flying under the Italian Wikipedia's deletion radar because none of the responsible editors have noticed it yet. And for another, different Wikipedias have different rules and different standards and different degrees of success in enforcing their rules and standards due to the size of their editing communities — so what one Wikipedia "accepts" has no bearing on another one in and of itself. (I, for example, have had to go to the Portuguese Wikipedia in the past to alert them to a problematic hoax article that tied into a hoax we had discovered here on the English one — not because they were accepting hoaxes or anything, but because they simply hadn't seen the hoax before we did.)
And secondly, the sources in the article are mostly either primary sources or dead links whose content is gone and unverifiable — which means they're mostly not reliable sources that we can actually accept. And the only one that is a valid source is not about Davide Giliberti, but just namechecks his existence one time in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-most of sources talk about his career or they refer to his works directly connected with their success or realization, i find unfair you can use this instrument arbitrarily while i see for other subjects they have poorer sources but you allow them to stay on it as for refinement you can see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Boselli or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabio_Mancini or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Ward_(model) , we could go ahead for so many other examples such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Calvani. You just are blocking the natural flow of informations cause is not even possible to write anything moreAngela Owen (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Angela Owen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - problems with other articles do not excuse the problems with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles is of great quality, it's true, but Boselli, Mancini and Ward all cite considerably more reliable source coverage than has been shown here — and while Calvani has no reliable sources right now, a simple Google search reveals that the necessary quality and depth of sourcing to repair it with does exist out there on the web. So no, none of them are equivalent to the article we're discussing here — and if any of them were, your singling them out would have resulted in them getting listed for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::People mentioned they don't have nothin more than the sources of the article that i contributed to edit, those are only personal blog or gossip blogs , i still feel to say you guys are managing arbitrarily the right to delete or to keep people, you even put my account in the list of suspected sock puppet, i would like to suggest an article on this kind of behaviour , i'm sure you guys re gonna delete it as soon as it will be shared.Angela Owen (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'- Is an article talking about a mode and an actor nothing to see about people who did something notable for the humanity, is not even a biography.is more notable than many others publishied on wikipedia, give to the editors the possibility to work on it to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmiro Kunz (talk • contribs) 13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Palmiro Kunz (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Palmiro Kunz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note There's some ridiculous Sockpuppet editing taking place here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note someone who writes sock puppet on a formal document as wikipedia is, should be bannedPalmiro Kunz (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts on Wikipedia is Sock Puppetry and can lead to the loss of your editing privileges. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Exemplo points out, sock puppet is a standard internal Wikipedia term for a specific and very common type of Wikipedia policy violation. So nobody's getting banned for using the words "sock puppet" in a "formal" (pfffft) document — but somebody might get banned for doing sockpuppetry if they're not careful. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your response underline "ridiculous", it means you are talking from a personal point of view.It's true there are so many profiles or articles that are less notable but nobody delete, you can't say that other articles can't be seen as a parameter of reference, law is one and the same for all if you wanna keep your service with high sense of justice, otherwise could be easier to pay the editing production for the approval of the articles.Palmiro Kunz (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs to be improved you can 't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Togliatti (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Marco Togliatti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You think adding "references" to IMDb and YouTube videos is "improving" it? Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you guys didn't pay attention on most of the articles in references, they talk about his life and the job he did, of course there are cases where the awards or the merit was given to the project but if someone i part of this project i don't see why he shouln't talk about since he worked on it as wel.IMDb has many rules in common with wikipedia so is really credible source, you tube is just a video social networkMarco Togliatti (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We most certainly did "pay attention" to the references. References need to be to reliable sources, which means real media — they cannot be to social networking content like Facebook or Twitter or YouTube, they cannot be to Blogspot blogs, they cannot be to his own primary source profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, and they cannot be to user-generated databases like IMDb. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If people can find sources which justify what is written should be kept, i found some new element and it doesn 't look not credibleNitin Bakar (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Nitin Bakar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep to allow everybody the same rights!PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)PasqualeGiliberti (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What "rights" would those be, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This "talk space" is just a way to cheat on people cause you don't give even the possibility to express themselves to people since you publish or delete whatever you want, and you Bearcat are the only one that on Davide Giliberti page are putting flags and impediments like you think you re gonna change the world with your actions, we will edit an article where we re gonna talk about wikipedia administrators and when you guys re gonna send the request to donate money to save your service we re gonna talk about how is partial your policy, starting to talk about all the pages that still are on wikipedia with no evidencesPasqualeGiliberti (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Definitely meatpupperty, the user above says "we". Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 17:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet basic notability threshold. There's very little reference to him (in any language). Claims in the article that he was a main character in various movies is not supported. IMDB lists him as "uncredited" in three movies. Many of the reference links are either dead or do not contain any reference to him.Glendoremus (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per above user Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, notability, vanity, self-promotion MiracleMat (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an actor and model who does not meet the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 9 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hifsa Sharma[edit]

Hifsa Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Reference search comes up with blogs, Instagram, and few, if any, secondary RS. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 11 March 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 as blatant hoax (G3). (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspecion of electronic survalence on Trump Campaign[edit]

Suspecion of electronic survalence on Trump Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article that consists of little more than restating the title and asking "is it true?". While the controversy over Trump's claims of Obama's wiretapping might possibly at some point deserve an article, this one contains no usable content and is so misspelled ("Suspecion" and "survalence") and ungrammatical ("surveillance on") that it isn't even of use as a redirect. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing worth saving. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see what purpose it could possibly serve. There is no content and the title is so unlike any potential query that it couldn't be used as a redirect. Mduvekot (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please, make it stop... ansh666 05:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. This could probably have been prodded rather than taken to AfD. Mortee (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't even resemble an encyclopedic article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to save in this tabloid headline article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/snow delete. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Speedy delete for every reason listed. The madness has now infected wikipedia. MiracleMat (talk) 01:08, 9 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Ferguson[edit]

The Age of Ferguson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-noteable neologism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 6 March 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  14:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Choromet[edit]

Choromet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A look on google for coverage by reliable secondary sources turned up nothing. Has been uncited, and unverified since it's creation in 2006, as well as being tagged as not citing any sources" since 2014. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no third party coverage to establish notability of the subject. This also had WP:CHANCE but seems nothing has changed for the betterment of the article. Xaxing (talk) 07:00, 11 March 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. North America1000 03:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donavon Warren[edit]

Donavon Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without rationale. Fails WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NACTOR and GNG. South Nashua (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' The film mentioned has a tag that it may not meet notability guidelines. I think people need to figure a clear yes or no answer there as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Film is not notable, and it's the only claim to notability for this person. Even if the film WAS notable, I don't think he's notable just for this one project, and there's literally nothing else on him anywhere. Rockypedia (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 13 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GigSalad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
GigSalad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still unchanged since the last AfD, which found considerable weight in the Delete side, considering of the 2 Keeps, one of them was by a now-banned paid spammer, to note the one "good" source that was offered there was in fact a clearly labeled business announcement; to analyze the current sources: 1 is a business profile with 2 and 3 being similar but a guide instead, and 4, 5 and 6 are all clearly labeled company-sourced announcements, which are simply not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH (company guidelines), WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Paid considering the one account has the usual signs suggesting either an employee or hired help. Our policies have never negotiated with advertising or webhosting, considerin that was one of the set policies when WP started. To also search for existing sources, I went to here and here but it simply found pages and pages of published or republished announcements, press releases, notices and similar, now compare to WP:CORPDEPTH's stated [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple statements, brief announcements, press releases, anything for or by the company or where it talks about itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. promotional article on non notable firm. The references are primarily press releases, some from extremely unreliable sources like local business journals. Rankings in "rapidly growing" lists are essentially indications of "not yet notable" -- this is especially true for a rank of 682nd. The actual awards are trivial. The article in CruchBase is a striking example of a useless reference--its a general article, which is just a name check--it says nothing at all about the company except its existence, as one of many others. Any article using mateial such as this can be assumed to be a desperate promotional effort to make an article where none is warranted. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. obvious self-promotion MiracleMat (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the article survived a prior AfD but is not better for it; still non notable & WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 13 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candido Del Buono[edit]

Candido Del Buono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable instrument maker. Winged Blades Godric 15:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG based on Bedini 1999 and Monaco 1998 which I've just added. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This search shows a number of books that have references to him and his water vapor studies and a letter to a contemporary, Vincenzo Viviani. I can't read Italian but I'm guessing the other books may have some useful information if we could find someone that can help out there. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:15, 7 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Wallace[edit]

Isabelle Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tennis player. Junior Grand Slam appearance isn't enough to warrant notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most notable titles are two $15k events in the last two months, notability guidelines for ITF events since 2007 require a title in the $50k category or better. I double-checked her Junior career to make sure that she never made it into the top 3 of the ITF Junior World Rankings, and although I was unable to find week-by-week rankings, she would have been able to make it to about #40 at best. SellymeTalk 21:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close, already deleted (G7).. GABgab 21:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern Cold War[edit]

Middle Eastern Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 6 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanam Arora[edit]

Sanam Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not notable, if you compare it to their LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sanamarora. They are not a prominent person. Additionally the article has been written by the General Secretary of the said organisation, MohanishB - https://uk.linkedin.com/in/mohanishb. So this shows bias and an attempt for one to promote their own cause. Rd897 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No delete necessary. Notability obvious from awards. User rd897 seems to be using Wikipedia to satisfy personal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased135 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC) This is this editor's ONLY contribution to WP. Onel5969 TT me 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • Strong delete as per above. --Rd897 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Zalewski[edit]

Richard Zalewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded without rationale. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 TT me 18:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Perhaps Dml1826, who created and deprodded the article, could explain to us what notability criteria he fancies the subject -- an otherwise undistinguished player with an ephemeral career in the rock-bottom minors and third-tier college hockey -- meets. Ravenswing 00:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY and I couldn't find anything for GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 13 March 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 Sufficient notability established to clear WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aixa de la Cruz[edit]

Aixa de la Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is one source, which is never enough to pass the general notability guidelines that require multiple, reliable 3rd party secondary sources. My Spanish is not strong enough to be sure, but it looks to me like the one source might not qualify as indepdent of the subject. Even if it does, it does not pass notability. Having works nominated for a prize is generally not enough to suggest notability, generally the prize has to be won, and I can not tell if the prize mentioned would even help with notability if won. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cruz is absolutely notable. She and/or her work has been covered in a number of Spanish language publications including Eñe Magazine and El País, the largest daily newspaper in Spain. The prize she was twice a finalist for, the Premio Euskadi de Literatura, is a very important literary prize. (It should also be noted that for larger prizes in a creative field merely being a finalist is indicative of notability -- there is no rule that you must win the prize to suddenly become notable.) Cruz has also won other notable prizes. As a final note, I've updated the article with a number of new citations and new information.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve, based on multiple nominations and periodical attentionRudyLucius (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:TOOSOON, basically. I will provide the source if anyone wants it. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Bhimaraju[edit]

Hari Bhimaraju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:BLP1E or WP:ONEEVENT. The majority of coverage appears to be due to the periodic elements app and or stemming from that app with the other items either tangential or concerning non-notable events (I suspect a good deal of the coverage may also be as a Human interest story). It is a nice article however the individual does not appear notable. Mifter (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete she may go on to pass notability, but so far this is too much hype around a fad with no show of staying power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure how much of the discussion from my talk page people can see here. When the template for 'notable for one event' was put on the page I made a case there and added further information and citations to the article, so I will paste some of my comments here:
I'm not sure which is the singular event you are referring to. Hari is a programmer who has developed several pieces of software/interfaces, most notably her periodic table learning device for visually impaired and blind students for which she won Broadcom MASTERS. The following year she developed that into a smartphone app and was invited to the White House Science Fair. The next piece of software she wrote and developed was medicine management software for blind and visually impaired, the elderly and those with alzheimers. She works with Piper Inc developing their software, and so on. She's been invited to the White House twice! That's on top of the fact that she's 13 years old. As there's not one single event how would you like me to improve the article?
Then I added a citation from ABC news about her other notable software, an integrated medicine management system, and another citation on a science website for blind and visually impaired people about that app. She is of course only 13 so there is an obvious human interest, but women in science are under represented on Wikipedia, and even if other editors feel she is too young or in some kind of grey area I would urge people to keep the page. As for WP:BLP1E 1) she is already known for several different things (Broadcom MASTERS, Elementor app, medicine management app, exhibiting at the White House Science Fair, being asked back which apparently rarely happens, Computer Science Girls award, Donum Visi) 2) She is clearly unlikely to remain a 'low profile individual' as she is 13 and presumably driven and even encouraged by her own achievements 3) Well documented in the press, mostly national news in the USA but also on websites less well known for blind and visually impaired people. The persistence of her press has been consistently since she was 11 years old. Naturally there is a public interest. As noted on my talk page I should be able to add photos if necessary. Thank you for inviting my comments Mramoeba (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
I'm with Mramoeba Each point made by Mifter has been addressed nicely.Boneso (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
I reviewed the details of WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT, and I do not see how one would think this article has a problem by those criteria.. RobP (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment only: I have added a citation from The Daily Telegraph (British major newspaper) in which she is featured and quoted, indicating further international coverage; a featured article in Raspberry Pi Foundations UK newsletter about her future programming; and more coverage on her most recent IPhone medicine app which was covered by Reach Out Radio, a station and website which provides audio coverage of print news articles of interest to blind people and those with visual impairment, demonstrating how her work is of particular interest to people in those communities as well as mainstream 'sighted' news agencies. Mramoeba (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No question that she passes WP:GNG and attempts to carve out a WP:BLP1E exception for a young person that has generated significant, independent coverage for over a year for multiple events is baffling. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD was improperly closed by an Anon - Procedural Relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that the primary author of the page has some contact/relationship with the subject of this article as from the description of File:Hari Bhimaraju and Bill Nye the Science Guy.jpg and File:Hari Bhimaraju, portrait.png it is stated that both images were emailed to the editor for use in the page directly from this girl's family. I am therefore concerned about the possible existence of a conflict of interest. Mifter (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The editor of the page is not an WP:SPI but I can understand the WP:APPARENTCOI but I myself have emailed for content so that there was no WP:COPYVIO. I feel the article is well sourced and passes WP:BIO - Pmedema (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment only There is no conflict of interest. I emailed the Donum Visi foundation AFTER the page was written asking if there was a photo for the page. I have never even emailed the subject as the response was from her sister. I find that entirely appropriate as the subject is 13. I was hardly in a position to take a photo myself as Cupertino is over 5000 miles away. Mramoeba (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As far as I can tell the reasons given in the original nomination have been more than addressed. Regarding the potential CoI, Mramoeba seems to edit a range of articles on popular science topics, and doesn't seem to have focused specifically on this one, nor are they the sole author of this article. I am also satisfied that they do not have close ties to the subject. On another note: this is a really thorough and well-sourced article, which is waiting in the DYK review queue, and I believe should pass fairly easily. While I'm glad that Mifter is being diligent about biographical articles, I will say that having it held up in AfD is a little frustrating. -Kieran (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In that case in regards to this article being in the DYK queue and by the looks of the above arguments, could this not be snowballed? Comment taken back - Pmedema (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please relist I prefer this to be relisted. I have been looking at some of the sources and I am increasingly of the opinion that this seems to be one of the human interest stories. I need some time to have a look though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, i don't wish to seem rude but it's been 17 days and relisted already Mramoeba (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But the article as it is written is extremely promotional and not what I would call an encyclopaedia article. There is an over reliance on primary sources. This also reads like some kind of a CV.
  • Bhimaraju is not sure what field she would like to follow but in an interview at the White House Science Fair in 2016 when asked what her dream job might be she said, "I want to do something 'sciencey' that helps people, so maybe like a biomedical engineer."  Fixed
  • Her mother Gayatri originally believed the email invitation to be a hoax as it arrived on short notice. She was eventually reassured by a member of the White House staff, and then Bhimaraju was allowed to travel unaccompanied to Washington. “This has been my best holiday gift ever!" she later wrote to her grandparents.  Fixed
The sourcing is quite problematic to be honest, which is why I want this to be relisted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept your criticism. I would suggest the best way forward is to help edit it, either to reword or remove. Both of these are from the small final section 'personal life'. I thought these were interesting, but Wikipedia is of course a collaboration, so I welcome the help. Mramoeba (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 28 sources in the article, so it is taking a bit of time to go through all of them. As of now, my personal opinion is that it would require some more secondary sources to establish notability. I will post my analysis of the sources below soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk)
  • Comment The dyk for this article (outstanding since jan 25th) has been recommended by an admin there for International Women's day, March 8th. It would be great if it could be decided either way in time for that. Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a look at this an the sources unfortunately are not good enough. This is essentially a human interest story and a biography about a generally low profile individual and is precisely what WP:BLP1E is about. The coverage is also largely local and a bunch of primary sources have been used in the article. Let's have a look at the sources.
  1. amysmartgirls.com This is essentially "contributor" article and an interview. Contributor articles are essentially WP:SPS. In addition, this is also an interview. We require reliable secondary sources.
  2. www.perkinselearning.org Not a reliable source. This is a mention on the website of a private institution - and is a puff piece. Source is affiliated with the subject, so not independent.
  3. www.projectcsgirls.com This is written by the subject. Not an independent source. See short descriptions (in no particular order) of our finalists' projects written by the girls themselves. In addition, this is a primary source  Fixed
  4. science-fair.org Primary source. Mentions name of subject but nothing more
  5. www.sciencenewsforstudents.org One sentence passing mention. The website also isn't exactly a reputable news source.
  6. The 30 most impressive science fair projects in the country Clickbait top 10 type listicle. Every single finalist of the Broadcom project is listed. The actual coverage is very very brief (3 sentences) and is literally a passing mention.
  7. White House Science Fair 2016 - Primary source and essentially a press release by the white house listing the students.
  8. DUPLICATE article - This is duplicate of #6
  9. ABC news - Feature on the subject. Although the format essentially indicates a human interest story, the reference is still useful. Possibly the only reliable secondary source which offers significant coverage.
  10. scifair.com Another primary source. Only mentions name of the subject.
  11. santacruzsentinel.com Local source. These are not useful for GNG because local sources put too much coverage on local individuals of even a little interest.
  12. telegraph.co.uk Passing mention. (2 sentences of which 1 is quote).
  13. Mercury news Local source reporting about the white house science fair. There are brief mentions of 4 bay area participants.
  14. perkinselearning.org Same source as #2 and is actually affiliated with the subject.
  15. reachoutradio.org Website of an organisation and not an RS. It actually links to the ABC post #9. This is not a separate source.
  16. student.societyforscience.org Primary source again. (The website of the insititution which awards the broadcom masters)
  17. projectcsgirls.com No mention of subject. Also primary source
  18. perkinselearning.org.Same source as #2 and is actually affiliated with the subject.
  19. donumvisi.org No mention of subject and source is affiliated with subject's sister
  20. tsbvi.edu Event listing which simply contains a passing mention of the subject's name. Also primary source
  21. societyforscience.org Press release and primary source. See #16
  22. thereporter.com This is a reprint of the Mercury News article (which itself is a local source). Reprints are not considered unique sources anyway.
  23. science-fair.org Primary source simply listing winners with no additional information. Same website as #4
  24. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov Primary source listing name of Asteroid. For perspective, 1500 science fair winners have Asteroids named after them
  25. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov No mention of subject.
  26. Youtube White house primary source. Essentially the subject talking for a brief moment.
  27. raspberrypi.org This is not a reliable source. Raspberry Pi newsletter simply collects news even minutely related to raspberry.
  28. mercurynews.com This is again a local source
According to the analysis above, I only find 1 ABCnews feature which offers significant coverage. The article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary sources and these do not help for notability. In addition, many of the sources are essentially the subject talking about themselves. All of this goes against WP:WHYN (the reason why we have notability guidelines). We require reliable secondary sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article. The article as it stands now is very much a WP:PROMO article.
I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. There have been many such children who have won science fairs. Many of them may have received local news coverage due to the event, but not much coverage later. We periodically have these human interest stories. This doesn't make them notable though and falls under the WP:NOTNEWS exception.
A scientist is notable for their work and we evaluate the impact of the work either by citations or by secondary press coverage. In this case citations are not applicable and the amount of secondary press coverage is very minimal as shown. At this time, I think this should be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time to reply to all this, but i'm sure Lemongirl is well aware that, for example, primary sources can be used to cite "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" like the school she went to (4), the awards won (7),(10),(16),(23) which is how these are used. Local reputable newspapers are fine. Amysmartgirls is not self published. A write up in a major British broadsheet and a quote is not simply a 'passing mention', it's also international coverage. Reach out Radio as I already mentioned is an audio website for blind people showing coverage not usually relevant unless the subject is of interest to the blind community. Perkinslearning is a website for blind students. The subject designs software for blind students, I guess they like her. The duplicate article I added was over a month later and yes, mea culpa, didn't realise it was a duplicate article. Mramoeba (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've listed a few years worth of RS demonstrating independent coverage on television, radio, and in publications beginning in 2015 to 2017 which substantiates her notability, especially considering her age (11-12 yr. old) and what she actually accomplished to garner such widespread attention at such a young age. Note: The Elementor Periodic Table App which she created is available for download all over the internet]
  1. Marin Independent Journal, September 2015 independent source, significant coverage
  2. NBC Bay Area, April 2016 NBC Bay Area independent significant coverage
  3. New India Times, April 2016 independent significant coverage
  4. FOX 2 News, April 2016 FOX Bay Area, independent significant coverage
  5. ABC Columbia, SC interviewed her Aug 2016 ABC affiliate, independent
  6. KWBG Local news radio in Iowa, Aug 2016 radio station, independent
  7. My Central Oregon (ABC), Aug 2016 ABC affiliate in Oregon, independent
  8. Dissecting Pig Lungs To Learn How We Breathe, October 2016 independent publication
  9. The Mecury News in Dec 2016 independent publication
There are more, but I don't think it's necessary to add all of them. There are many more cited in her BLP. Atsme📞📧 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked every one of those sources (careful clicking on the one from India, it has a script that crashed my browser), and they are either (1) about all the children who went to the White House, not focusing on this one, (2) California sources along the lines of local girl makes it big, or (3) mirror sources of the ABC news source. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd NBC Bay Area report is titled "Cupertino Middle Schooler Presents Project at White House Science Fair", and that is who was interviewed. The caption under the broadcast states: "Twelve-year-old Bhimaraju of Kennedy Middle School presented at the White House “The Elementor,” a portable, low-cost teaching tool to help visually impaired students learn the periodic table of elements. (Published Tuesday, April 26, 2016)" And if you go down the list, you will find the same thing. Just looking at the link titles gives the focus of the interview/story, such as ABC Columbia - "inspiring-12-year-old-girl-creates-tool-and-technology-for-the-visually-impaired", and KWBG radio in Idaho "california-girl-12-creates-tools-and-technology-for-the-visually-impaired", and on and on. I don't know why the cached article crashed your browser but there are 8 other sources that didn't if you checked them all, and most were focused on Hari far more than they were the White House trip. Atsme📞📧 17:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I checked them all. And many of them are mirror sources of the ABC news report. We don't treat mirror sources as multiple sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is clearly a very intelligent child, and will no doubt be notable one day, but she is not there yet. A winning science fair project does not make for notability, and the article is full of WP:PUFFERY, such as "she was particularly thrilled to meet Bill Nye the Science Guy."  Fixed The subject does not meet WP:BIO, which is the relevant criterion. She has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," nor has she "received a well-known and significant award or honor" like the Nobel Prize. -- 120.17.44.177 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should consider statements by Lemongirl942. Right now it seems like a 'no consensus' closure, despite a ratio of six 'keep's for four (including the nominator) delete !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not agree that the Mercury News (two articles) and the Santa Cruz Sentinel are too "local" to be useful. The ABC news along with these other "local" papers is plenty to prove notability. Primary sources are commonly used to accent the secondary noteworthy ones that already exist here. I think calling the Merc "local" when it has a circulation of over half a million daily, quite a reach, plus it has received two Pulitzer Prizes.Sgerbic (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Edited to add a response to isp 120.17.44.177... If only people who had won the Nobel Prize could receive Wikipedia pages, we would have a pretty empty website. And as far as I'm concerned according to the article I just reviewed, Bhimaraju has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"'. Also to the charge that some of the article seems to contain "puffery", that is what is keeping the article from reading like a dry piece of paper, this isn't a CV afterall.Sgerbic (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep change to DELETEunable to verify validity of the "innovative" systems beyond publicity as a school project Atsme📞📧 13:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC) - notability passes. The world isn't inundated with aspiring young female scientists so this young lady's notability and her story's encyclopedic value is far reaching. Atsme📞📧 18:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I became aware of this discussion via a note at WT:PROF. I largely agree with Lemongirl942's analysis of the sources. And as much as I am personally sympathetic to the value of us covering young female scientists, my reading of policies and guidelines leads me to a close-call of delete – and policies and guidelines should determine the consensus here, not editors' likes and dislikes. The subject is primarily recognized by way of having been selected to present at a White House science fair (attended by President Obama and Bill Nye) along with with other students, and having won a national STEM competition for middle school students. Does she satisfy WP:PROF as a scientist? No, because the note to criterion 2 states: Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. It's not a "major award" in science, as Wikipedia defines it (see the paragraph just above the one I quoted at WP:PROF). Furthermore, WP:NACADEMIC, first point, says that a basic characteristic of notability for having done something in science is: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline.... In other words, other scholars have built further investigation upon the work of the page subject. Per the available sourcing, that has not yet happened. So she does not pass PROF. But does she, instead, pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO? The first point of ANYBIO is about a significant award or honor, and I just dealt with that above. The second point is The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Note: "part of the enduring historical record", which is very much as how PROF describes "significant impact". So we are left with GNG or WP:BASIC. BASIC requires multiple secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This is where it gets close, and we are almost there, but not actually all the way there. Because so much of the sourcing derives from winning the middle school award and going to the White House, it's worth looking at those two events in terms of WP:DIVERSE. The coverage should be significantly national or international. We have plenty of sourcing from the area in California from which the person comes. But we have exactly one source (and I've looked carefully at each of them) that focuses on the individual person (as opposed to mentioning her among all the other students at the White House) and is national-level coverage: the one from ABC news: [1]. GNG says of such major coverage that multiple sources are generally expected. Do we have enough California sources to say that, despite "generally", we can here justify a keep based on GNG? It's a close call, but particularly in the context of failing so many SNG criteria, I think not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI - I added some additional sources above spanning a few years, and all independent coverage on local ABC, NBC, FOX affiliates but in different parts of the country. GNG doesn't require a primetime network feed, just multiple independent RS. I also added India Times for a bit of international flare. Since the child is not Hollywood famous and is still just a minor, only 11-12 yrs old in middle school, the lack of major network coverage is expected, especially considering the topic. Atsme📞📧 00:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replied above, after your list of the sources. I still say delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought further about whether there might be an option of merging the page into a page about one of the events. We seem not to have a page about the middle school STEM competition, which may indicate that it's not really that notable an event (or alternatively just no page yet). White House Science Fair redirects to USA Science and Engineering Festival, and a look at that page reveals that it's a huge event, in which one middle school student would be just one attendee. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I considered your suggestion, but can't get past what this highly notable young lady has already developed, the notable of which is mentioned in the lede of the article. It is not only encyclopedic, it is innovatively beneficial as software. Atsme📞📧 17:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source about software that discusses how this software has had a further "beneficial" influence, then that statement would not have been OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:Too soon. No in-depth sources. Hopefully in later times this may change. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Looking over this discussion, this has been relisted twice and an enormous about of research has been involved. I'm wondering if this is just getting weird. I've been in many conversations about deletions and can't remember one this involved. I'm really glad to see how much Wikipedians care. But at some point, don't we have other things to do? This is from Feb 15th, Just saying.Sgerbic (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not regard student awards as leading to notability, science fairs included. Even the most notable of all student awards, and at the graduate not junior high school level, the Rhodes Scholarships, have been held repeatedly not to by themselves prove notability . The relevant policy is NOT TABLOID, and extreme instance of the more general NOT NEWS. NOTTABLOID is meant to apply not just to sensationalist stories of unexplained phenomena or lurid accounts of celebrities,but to things intrinsically minor but that are being made a fuss over. Over-detsailed human interest stories about cute young people doing well in a student competition or inventing something minor but very good considering their age, or publishing a trivial scientific paper, tend to attract momentary human interest. in a very few cases, its been long term interest and then there might be a reason for considering it. Having reliable sources is necessary for an article, and for meeting the GNG. But that's a secondary consideration to the specific prohibitions in WP:NOT, which are intended to be the defining basis for a modern encyclopedia. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia , not a collection of interesting things in a vague and indiscriminate way. Accounts like this are the equivalent of a politician kissing babies, and bear the same relationship to anything important. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment so it appears to me that some editors are saying that because this young girl is only a student and not an academic professional or scientist that she is not notable, and/or that a gifted 11-12 yr. old who created an educational software program that helps the blind and received a great deal of significant coverage in numerous independent sources because of that accomplishment, is neither encyclopedic nor notable because she is a student? Atsme📞📧 13:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E is not at all relevant because we have multiple events and achievements; the subject is the focus of attention and she is not a low-profile person, having won multiple public awards. Instead, the subject passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her age is irrelevant and any invocations of WP:TOOSOON are (willfully?) misunderstanding what that essay says. As Andrew D. states, WP:BLP1E does not apply as there are more than one event and list of achievements. And per Atsme, there are multiple sources that discuss this person in more than a trivial manner -- local press is still acceptable (not sure why it would not be). Sometimes a young person is notable, full stop. Easily passes WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 15:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put in my two cents previously, and nothing said by folks since who are lobbying for deletion has changed my mind. I agree that WP:TOOSOON is being misused and WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply in this case. Seems to me to pass WP:GNG - and easily. RobP (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC) (Changed dup vote to comment!)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is not just the preserve of Old White men of European Origins, with two feet in the past! We have a programmer, who in the space of two years has two notable smartphone app to her name. If President Obama has lauded her- that satisfies Notability in anyone's book. We have a programmer who is doing notable work on a Raspberry Pi- who is hacking in Java, wrestling Android and Linux- these are multiple achievements. If you try hard enough you can always fail someone on a nitpicking technicality. Try running the God article through some of these test. Do we want the article or are we just playing games? Is it of sufficient interest? This is a programmer from California- she had President Obamas East Coast interest, and writing this from London, I can assure you that it will be of interest over here to large numbers of teachers for a start as role model. Does it benefit Wikipedia to include her- obviously, Raspi and Smart-phone are the future.
GNG are judged on amount of coverage- I suspect that there will be even more primary and secondary coverage were a delete goes ahead- of the type.. Wikipedia deletes article.... on International Womens Day. All this nit-picking and bile- just proves two things we need to have a set of rules for notable WP:CHILDPRODIGY and clarify WP:EXCEPTIONS ClemRutter (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT isn't nitpicking technicality. It's fundamental policy, and the basis of the rationale why we have an encyclopedia. NOT NEWS,and NOT TABLOID are not nitpicking technicalities, the the basis of how we cover (or not) current events,and human interest stories. What is not policy is WP:N, all of which (including the GNG) is only a guideline. So if it fails WP:NOT, it doesn't matter how much coverage it has. (If there should be ongoing coverage, NOT NEWS might not apply, but there is utterly no reason for assuming it.) Many things are useful to teachers that do not belong in an encyclopedia. I don't personally see how GOD fall under WP:NOT -- even if you regard it as a superstition, we cover superstitions, because we are NOT CENSORED. Lots of people are invited to see the president, most of whom are probably not notable. I do not see how race matters--the argument would be just as strong. Age can matter, in the sense that children are extremely unlikely to accomplish actual notability under such criteria as WP:PROF, or ATHLETE, (we do not accept youth competitions any more than we accept science fairs as leading to notability--one of my early losses at AfD was my argument for the notability of a very photogenic high school pole vaulter). In some fields, of course children can be notable, as for example child actors, and there have been notable child musicians. It is not a notable achievement to know Java, or several thousand WPedians would be notable, along with every commercial web programmer on earth. Hundreds of thousands of people know how to program Linux and Android. A program to display the periodic table is a worthwhile exercise for a beginner, but it's not the sort of web program which is likely to be notable. Sentimentality is justification for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent points, DGG...however...with regards to this particular BLP, I have to ask...do we dismiss the fact that she created software that has proven beneficial to the sight impaired? Do we ignore that she is a young science innovator who is known for developing The Elementor, a low-cost Periodic table teaching aid and smartphone software app for the visually impaired which provides an interface using sound and LEDs to show the position of the valence electrons and radioactivity for a given chemical element or that she is also known for developing a medicine management app which she describes as being designed to address accidental drug non-compliancy in groups such as the blind, visually impaired, elderly and those living with Alzheimers, and to give audible information on contents and dosage as well as reordering medicines when necessary? Developing the aforementioned software is not just a "passing" fancy - it has long term effects which are unambiguously encyclopedic. It is not my intention to step on anyone's toes - especially the toes of scientists who may see her accomplishments as a fluke - but fluke or not, what she's done is notable and encyclopedic. Atsme📞📧 19:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's less than a fluke--a fluke is making a major contribution by accident or inspiration; this is not a significant contribution, but a student project. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After spending hours researching beyond the "child wonder" stories, I was unable to find anything that validated the "innovative systems" she developed. After carefully weighing the arguments, I changed my !vote to D. Atsme📞📧 14:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and in this case can we not WP:Ignore all rules? - Pmedema (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that a lot of editors are arguing "keep", based upon what one editor described as being about "Old White men of European Origins". I'm personally very sympathetic to making sure that we have coverage of young female scientists of all origins, but we are not here to WP:RGW. I trust that the closing admin will weigh policy-based arguments, as opposed to just counting vote numbers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all this time I thought the "keep" votes were a result of the many arguments in support of her notability and encyclopedic value of her accomplishments which have been verified by multiple RS. I agree with you in that the single off-color remark you quoted should have no bearing on the outcome, and trust that it will not. Her notability has nothing to do with gender or origin, and everything to do with the scientific innovations she created to help the blind, visually impaired, elderly and those living with Alzheimers. Atsme📞📧 00:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that it was the only argument. If there are reliable sources that describe the blind, visually impaired, elderly, and those living with Alzheimers, actually having benefited, then they should be cited. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I haven't been able to verify that any of the instruments and/or software she developed are actually in use, but is that required for N in this particular case? I was of the mind that her notability stems from the innovative development of them. The Elementor was once available for download on iTunes, but when I tried to download it, I got a message that it is no longer available in the U.S. I haven't been able to find anything beyond published mention of either the brain teaser software, or the medicine management kit she developed. Business Insider stated with reference to The Elementor that, Her system has already been tested by two schools for the blind that are now working to incorporate her system into their classrooms, but again, I haven't been able to verify anything beyond what is stated in the sources. Atsme📞📧 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tryptofish and Lemongirl's analysis of the sources. Human interest articles in a local area generally aren't too useful for determining notability, especially the lasting significance required by WP:BLP1E when we note that almost all of this coverage is related to the app creation and subsequent trip to the White House. ~ Rob13Talk 03:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete96.127.243.41 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments in the !vote above have been revision-deleted. Remaining comments are now non-sequiturs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do we have a WP policy for unsigned commenters leaving accusations of deception and deceit aimed at a child and her family in a public page? If we do can someone remove the comment above please? I had decided not to comment any more but this shouldn't be a part of wikipedia Mramoeba (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent an email regarding this to the address on the Wikipedia:Libel page. RobP (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also started WP:ANI#Edit that should probably be rev-deled at an AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources. I think we'll be seeing more of her. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out above, WP:BLP1E is not relevant because there are multiple events here. With respect to Lemongirl, I think she's a little harsh on some of the sources; while many of them are not up to snuff for GNG purposes, I am happy that [2], [3] and [4] are sufficiently weighty to push her past the GNG - while some of the sources are indeed from the same geographic area I don't think that such sources should be discounted when they are from otherwise sound and reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Maybe you made a typo, but two of those three links go to the same source, and it's a local home-town community newspaper. Such sources are certainly reliable, as you say, but I think that there is a judgment as to whether they establish notability. We certainly wouldn't use such sources to say that a Little League baseball player was notable. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes, one of them was supposed to be the ABC News reference. I don't agree with the characterisation of the Santa Cruz Sentinel as a "local home-town community newspaper"; it doesn't even have any little league coverage! Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks. I do agree with you about the ABC News source, as I said in my comment earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Fail WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NOT. After reviewing the article and sources I agree with the solid, policy based analysis of User:Lemongirl942, User:Tryptofish and User:DGG. Rather than repeat their concerns I concur that the article is relying on sources that are primary which do nothing to establish notability or local coverage which is not broad enough coverage for notability.
  • Per WP:IV "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to are primary-source and not independent material."
  • Per WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC require the subject to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Even though there are over 25 references listed , none, with the single exception of the ABCNews source, meet this requirement.
Most importantly, WP:NOT is the basic policy the encyclopedia is built on and takes precedence over guidelines and must be met before any guidelines apply.
Although the subject appears to be an intelligent and promising young person and may be WP:TOOSOON. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep it. CBS527Talk 16:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my use of WP:TOOSOON is referring to my opinion that it is too soon for article for the subject based on the sources not that it is too soon for subject because of her age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rev-deled comments by the IP a short way above included something that I feel comfortable repeating without violating BLP or anything else. There has been some evidence of efforts by people associated with the page subject to generate favorable coverage here and elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to add to the perfect policy based analysis of Lemongirl942, Tryptofish and DGG.Winged Blades Godric 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm simply going to say as per Winged Blades of Godric, since I also feel that Lemongirl942, Tryptofish and DGG summed it up perfectly, and stuck to policy & guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment directed at all editors. Because this is the sort of AfD that gets bogged down in opinions, interpretations of policy and guidelines, SPIs and possible meatpuppetry or off-Wiki canvassing, it becomes confusing to sort through various posts. Often editors will resort to shorthand when addressing the opinions of others. I do this myself, often. However, please keep in mind that simply stating that a certain number of !votes are policy-based implies that contrary !votes are not policy-based. Likewise, when stating "WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep" without addressing the specific editor who may have !voted in such a way, paints all those who voted keep in this AfD of doing so contrary to WP:ILIKEIT. Let's remember to be specific and address actual editors when applicable. Thanks. freshacconci talk to me 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had to re-read your comment a few times to really understand it, but no, WP:ILIKEIT is not something that is conditionally a valid argument. It is never valid (and likewise of course for WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And it is perfectly valid to describe some comments as "policy-based" if in fact they are policy-based. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently still don't understand my comment, I guess, as I never said WP:ILIKEIT is a valid argument. As for the policy-based argument issues, read again what I said. I was asking that editors be specific in their comments, so as to not imply that only the "delete" !votes followed policy. freshacconci talk to me 21:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification! It is appropriate to characterize arguments as ILIKEIT if in fact they are ILIKEIT, and to characterize them as policy-based if in fact they are policy-based. And inappropriate if they are not. But to implicitly refute "delete" comments that agree with another editor's policy-based arguments by saying that such "delete" comments reflect badly on editors who say "keep" is a rhetorical dodge. Better to demonstrate that "keep" arguments are policy-based by explaining how they are policy-based. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have given up trying to evaluate consensus here now that this is a huge puddle of ideas. I'd advise for the closer to address the points made very carefully. Now that I've added this 'keep', the count is 13–13; this !vote makes this AfD even more brain-racking. In short my analysis is that this article passes GNG, 1E, most notability standards, and BLP1E.
The sockpuppetery investigation concerning Mramoeba, Boneso, and Sgerbic has been reviewed by a checkuser—albeiot not closed—finding all the accounts unrelated to each other. Thus that concern is not a problem any more, not making this AfD any easier for the closer.
There is more than one event related to her, not just the White House visit, but also 6 items in the 'Awards and recognition' section. Thus she passes ONEEVENT and BLP1E, the two policies noted in the nominator (Mifter)'s rationale. That was the cause for mainly 'keep's at the start.
Despite Lemongirl942 having some well-explained analysis, there are flaws (as pointed out below her !vote), and there are still a few references:
Detailed sources
"An 11-year-old Cupertino girl has been selected as one of 30 finalists in the Broadcom MASTERS competition to be held locally in Santa Clara County. Hari Bhimaraju, a seventh-grader at Kennedy Middle School, created a tool that helps the visually impaired study chemistry, though her explanation is much more technical. "It's a tool which helps you learn about the elements in the periodic table. So you enter in an atomic number or a chemical symbol or a chemical name, then it will provide you with all these results," she said. "With that, it will draw the atom and then step by step while writing the electron configuration so that you can understand what part of the atom is what.""
"Using hardware and software simulations and audio cues, the program helps to give the visually impaired the same opportunities as any budding scientist, something that Hari finds incredibly important. "I felt that there is so much that we're taking for granted with our eyes. I wanted to help them as well and thought it would be cool for them to also learn this." Expanding one's knowledge of the scientific world is something Hari believes should always be available to everybody. "I think science is really important because the only way to really do anything about the world around you is if you know about it," she said. "So science is a way to learn more about the world and based on that, do more, and improve on it. I think that's really cool.""
"Hari is one of 30 finalists selected for the Broadom MASTERS competition from 300 semifinalists. Originally there were more than 2,230 applicants, which were only considered because of nominations through Society for Science and the Public science fair competitions. Even being nominated for the competition requires the applicant to be in the top 10 percent of all science students in the United States, according to the competition website. MASTERS stands for Math, Applied Science, Technology and Engineering Rising Stars. Hari will participate in the competition Oct. 2-6. when she will be tested not only on her science project, but also her abilities in general STEM subjects. According to the Broadcom MASTERS website, Hari's fellow finalists are 13 girls and 16 boys from 14 states, representing 28 schools and one home school. California has the most finalists with eight, followed by Florida with five, Texas with three and two each from Minnesota, New York, and Utah."
"Twelve-year-old Hari Bhimaraju of Kennedy Middle School in Cupertino presented at the 2016 White House Science Fair. Her project, "The Elementor," is a portable, low-cost teaching tool to help visually impaired students learn the periodic table of elements."
"She also met Bill Nye the Science Guy and White House staffer DJ Patil, Chief Data Scientist at the White House. Patil also attended Kennedy Middle School in Cupertino. "He fist pumped me when he was leaving and said "Go Cougars!" which is our school mascot," Bhimaraju said. "That inspired me that I could do great things.""
"Middle-School Coder Develops Tool to Help Teach the Periodic Table to the Visually Impaired Hari Bhimaraju, a 12-year old Kennedy Middle School student from Cupertino, California, used a Raspberry Pi and Arduino to design the hardware and soft- ware for “The Elementor”, a portable, low-cost teaching tool to help visually impaired stu- dents learn the periodic table of elements. When a user enters an element’s symbol with either a regular or a Braille keyboard, pictures and animations show a model for an atom of the ele- ment, along with light-up LEDs and sound beeps to describe the positions of the element’s elec- trons. The system, which is now available for purchase, also uses a simulated Geiger counter to provide information about radioactivity, and a voice gener- ation feature speaks all details out loud. In addition to winning the 1st Place Award in Technology at the 2015 BroadcomMASTERS competition, two schools for the blind have reviewed the tool’s usefulness and are in the process of having their students use it."
"Bay Area representatives included Hari Bhimaraju, 12, from Kennedy Middle School in Cupertino. She designed "The Elementor," which is a portable, low-cost device that teaches the scientific periodic table to the visually blind."
"Growing up in the shadow of Silicon Valley, 12-year-old Hari Bhimaraju of Cupertino, California, has always been fascinated by science and technology, and she’s putting her skills to good use by creating tools for the visually impaired. “I’ve kind of just grown up in a house where it’s always been a thing to help people,” Hari told ABC News. “Especially the visually impaired.” The first project she created was a periodic table teaching tool for the visually impaired called the “The Elementor” when she was in the sixth grade. She combined her love for chemistry and atoms and used a Raspberry Pi computer to create the low-cost tool. The system uses sound and voice features, and LED lights for people with low vision to describe the position of the element’s electrons. “I started creating these tools for the visually impaired because I love learning about chemistry and I think that I want to spread that knowledge,” Hari said. “There aren’t really any great tools out there which really are specific to them.” Hari’s project was part of the sixth annual White House Science Fair this past April. She presented “The Elementor” animated teaching tool and met President Obama. “Shaking hands with the president was, of course, amazing,” she said."
"“She is so comfortable using Stack Overflow and finding solutions to her own problems,” her mom, Gayatri Bhimaraju, told ABC News. “It’s definitely very exciting and interesting to see her combine software and hardware and try to explain things to us.” For Hari’s father, Prasad Bhimaraju, her visit to the White House was an important moment for the family. “We being first generational immigrants,” Prasad told ABC News. “We came here and now our daughter is being invited to meet the president and show that innovation to the president. It’s a very proud moment for us.”
"Growing up in the shadow of Silicon Valley, 12-year-old Hari Bhimaraju of Cupertino, California, has always been fascinated by science and technology, and she’s putting her skills to good use by creating tools for the visually impaired. “I’ve kind of just grown up in a house where it’s always been a thing to help people,” Hari told ABC News. “Especially the visually impaired.” The first project she created was a periodic table teaching tool for the visually impaired called the “The Elementor” when she was in the sixth grade. She combined her love for chemistry and atoms and used a Raspberry Pi computer to create the low-cost tool. The system uses sound and voice features, and LED lights for people with low vision to describe the position of the element’s electrons."
"In keeping with her passion for science and helping the visually impaired, Hari also created a medicine management system for people living with vision loss who aren’t able to read drug container labels and package inserts. She created an iPhone app that scans the labels using a radio frequency identification system that shows the expiration dates, name of the medicine and whether it needs to be refilled. “I can make a difference with this idea to manage medicines,” Hari said. “When I actually go to blind centers and I see how thankful the people really are, and I actually meet the person, I think that makes a huge impact.” Hari’s talent has been noticed tech companies like Piper, where she is a student innovator. Piper creates DIY computer kits that kids assemble to learn about electronics. “She’s built technology before. She’s been recognized for that so she understands some of the things that go into making a product, making a device that works,” Piper CEO Mark Pavlyukovskyy told ABC News. “That feedback is invaluable for this. Working with her and mentoring her allows us to understand the DNA of younger mentors.” For Hari, it is all about learning and sharing knowledge with others. “I think it’s really exciting to be actually giving feedback to them because they’re adults, and they’re so smart,” she said. “I love being a part of that because their goals align with mine to teach kids about electronics and programming.” Hari hopes to continue working on science app development and attend Stanford University when she graduates from high school. “I think the biggest thing is I feel I can inspire other people to do things,” Hari added. “I think it’s important that you learn what’s around you and don’t just take things for granted.”"
""My favorite part was definitely the dissections! Every time we learned about a body system, we dissected it from our fetal pigs and saw how it worked. When we learned about the respiratory system, we dissected sheep lungs, because they're big and easy to see, and fetal pig lungs. Then we pumped air into them through the trachea to learn how we breathe. In total, we dissected an entire fetal pig; a sheep lung, brain, and heart; a chicken wing; and a cow eye. It was amazing to see how many countless, intricate processes — each comprised of millions of cells — have to work in perfect sync every second for a whole lifetime!""
"Her mom was skeptical of the invite: just one day’s notice via email to cross the country to watch a movie? “I got all kinds of doubts — was this spam?” Bhimaraju wondered. She called the White House organizer, who explained an earlier email encountered a glitch, and that the late-arriving invitation was genuine. Bhimaraju was still doubtful. “I said I’ll think about it.” The White House then called back to reassure her, and the Bhimarajus bought a last-minute ticket for Hari to travel solo and arranged for relatives to pick her up in D.C. After the movie and the savory popcorn that she wasn’t supposed to be eating because of her braces, Hari hopped back on a plane. “This has been my best holiday gift ever! I will forever thank our 44th president for the opportunities he has provided me and many other children all around the country,” she wrote her family and friends. Hari doesn’t do social media, but regularly emails her grandparents in India and others about her latest doings."
  • Those sources are why I believe this meets GNG and other notability guidelines. J947 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Comments revised 18:09, March 15, 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • At the time that I write this comment, the SPI has not been closed, despite what you said. The CU found that the editors are not the same person, but there is ongoing discussion about some pretty strong behavioral evidence of WP:MEAT. And as for your list of sources, these are all sources that were listed and discussed above. Some of them are mirror sources, some are extremely local, and some are about all of the students who attended the White House event, without focusing on this student. Oh, and the vote count is meaningless. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The !vote count isn't entirely meaningless in and of itself, if all the !votes give valid rationales. freshacconci talk to me 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate the ping, I agree fully with Tryptofish's response above. I still do not believe this individual is notable enough for an encyclopedia article at this time. Further, many of the sources you mention are very local, are mirrors, etc. as highlighted by Tryptofish. As this is a human interest topic it is not surprising that there is some coverage however I still believe it is insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Mifter (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lemongirl942. I don't see GNG in this coverage. I don't see persuasive policy-based arguments to keep. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Lemongirl942's analysis. Inlinetext (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of sources: of the sources listed above,
no .1, 2, 4, & 9 are local news about a local girl,
no. 3, 5, 6, and 7 is copied word for word from similar sources--they are all abc news, a syndicated news service
no. 8 is trivial
None of them are even worth using in the article, let alone showing notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Except No. 3. and No. 5., and there is no major problem with local sources, is there? J947 18:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what DGG said, and it's not what I said earlier, either. We have only one source that really fulfills GNG, which is the one from ABC news. I've already explained why. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with local sources for an article such as this is that local sources about local personalities in general are likely to be indiscriminate, and this goes especially for local human interest stories about local schoolchildren. They show no general interest except in the community, which is apt to celebrate excessively any local person--especially child, or someone else with particular appeal--and that they celebrate excessively is remarkably clear with respect to this particular instance, both in the article itself and in the defense of it, with the wild exaggerations of the importance of the work. Looking at pictures of young people invited to see the president--any president--it seems obvious that pictorial appeal is a very large part of it. That's WP:TABLOID territory. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 23:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATB[edit]

ATB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. Fails notability criteria for music. Very few references and many of it might be unreliable (especially the Last FM ones). - TheMagnificentist 17:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 6 March 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) — Yash talk stalk 18:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Vert[edit]

Juan Vert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, NCOMPOSER, unclear if that can ever be remedied. South Nashua (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources in English that cover Vert's work (which was mainly in partnership with Reveriano Soutullo) include a chapter in The Zarzuela Companion [5], a paragraph in Spanish Music in the Twentieth Century [6], and a useful mention (highlighting several of their most important works) in 150 Years of Popular Musical Theatre. [7]. Many Spanish-language sources are apparent in Google searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. @South Nashua: sorry but you should always click through to the original language article es:Juan Vert... In ictu oculi (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: Hello, I didn't see a notice saying there was a corresponding language article when I proposed this for afd. Also didn't see anything in the search, maybe I spelled it wrong. If the article can be cleaned up, that's preferable to deletion. South Nashua (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant composer; I added a source to the article.--Pampuco (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 11 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junior University Musical Theater[edit]

Junior University Musical Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NGO. Cannot find any sources outside of the immediate area in Southern California. Most of the links are dead and give no clue to their sources. Rogermx (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - alas. I really wanted to !vote Keep, but can find no policy based argument to do so. Outside of the two local papers, zero coverage. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 14 March 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. per WP:A7 The WordsmithTalk to me 16:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TeRra (magazine)[edit]

TeRra (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely English promotional article for not-magazine. Speedy was declined for some reason, but although the author's facebook account was apparently blasted out because of breakthrough the 10,000 group members gathered merely in 2 weeks, this is basically "check out my blog", complete with badly photo-shopped cover for not-magazine, that doesn't actually have a cover, because it's not in-print...because it's a blog. Yeah, I think that pretty much covers it. TimothyJosephWood 16:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – promotional article for non-notable subject. Citobun (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that because the subject of the article has not had any significant roles in notable productions yet, she is not notable as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines for the notability of entertainers at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Wiggins[edit]

Eden Wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Wiggins' roles have included a couple of single-episode appearances. Coverage is local interest or passing mention only. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with prejudice) – article on child actress that fails to even reach the outskirts of WP:NACTOR. Frankly, this one is so flagrant that I'd almost advocate speedy deleting it under WP:A7 – frankly, the rejection of said A7 request was erroneous: Wiggings didn't "star" on Orange is the New Black, she only appeared as a guest star in one episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have declined A7 due to the significant coverage in the Baltimore Sun, published 16 6 years ago, suggesting that additional coverage might be found. But I don't see this meeting WP:NACTOR either. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: You mean 6 years ago, not sixteen, right?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hold on, I need a rag to clean the floor of my talk page. This'll do as it's going down the tubes soon anyway at this rate. MM ('"HURRRR?) (Hmmmmm.) 00:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GNG not met. Non-notable "extra." Exemplo347 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete She has appeared in 1 episode in 2 TV shows, saying she "guest starred" in "Orange is the New Black" may even be overstating things. Since she will evidently turn 18 some time this year, calling her a "child actress" might be misusing the term, but she has not made a big break to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:02, 13 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kaiser (entertainer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Robert Kaiser (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AFD immediately withdrawn as "I'd already tried this last year", but that doesn't seem to be enough. The sourcing appears to be a Canadian equivalent of IMDb, the filmography is scant, and otherwise no sources seem to exist. First AFD turned up some sources, but they only appear to be passing mentions at best. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for the record, I first nominated this in September 2016, and it was kept on the grounds that "plenty of good sources exist" — albeit without much evidence shown of where particularly strong sources existed, because all that was shown in the debate was a photograph of the subject in drag not accompanied by an actual article, and three glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that weren't about him to any substantive degree. I had forgotten about the initial discussion, so I nominated it again when came across the article again yesterday, and only realized I'd nominated it before when the page turned out to be a "2nd nomination" and I clicked on the first one to review it. I wasn't prepared to stick my neck out on it again so soon, because that can look like "actively trying to ignore consensus" rather than the good faith accident that it really was, so I withdrew it — but I have no objection to the fact that TenPoundHammer decided to reinitiate it, and I do still believe that it's a delete.
    What I'm still not seeing here is a strong claim to notability or any strong sourcing to support a WP:GNG claim — the sources shown in the first discussion aren't strong ones, for the reasons I addressed in my first paragraph above, and I can't find anything better. There's just no real substance here, either — the acting roles are all guest bit parts, not significant roles for the purposes of clearing WP:NACTOR, and even the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is not in and of itself a notability-conferring award. It was presented to 46,000 Canadians in 2002 to honour their records of volunteerism and community involvement, so while an awardee might be able to clear an inclusion test on the notability and sourceability of whatever work they did to earn the medal, the medal itself does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all 46,000 of them in the absence of proper sourcing for the notability of their work. And the only source present in the article is an IMDb-style database which, like IMDb itself, does not confer an automatic Wikipedia notability pass just because a database profile exists — and, for added bonus, that profile is a dead link.
    We don't keep articles about local notables just because their existence can be sourced to photographs and glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things — for a figure of purely local notability to clear the bar, there has to be a lot more substance and a lot better sourcing than is available here. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the depth of coverage needed for notability. My searches found little beyond the sources identified in the 1st Afd nomination. Of those four none are significant coverage of Kaiser. They are a photo, non-independent comments by the subject about his mother, name mention in article about an award, brief quotes of the subject in an article regarding nightclub shootings. Happy to reconsider if better sources are located. Gab4gab (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 6 March 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 05:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warstones Wanderers F.C.[edit]

Warstones Wanderers F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable football team. Plays at a low tier of the UK pyramid and does not meet the notability criteria for soccer teams at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club notability. Nor does it meet WP:GNG there is little to be found beyond routine listings and occasional match reports. Nthep (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Club has played in the FA Vase, which has been agreed to be sufficient for notability purposes at numerous previous AfDs (see comments here for example). Number 57 10:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned above, competing in the Vase is sufficient to establish notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played as high a level 10, and in FA Vase, as per FCHD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)
    • Actually they have never played at level 10. Division One of the WMRL is level 11 (Midland Alliance level 9, WMRL Prem level 10, Division One level 11). Number 57 10:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, has played in a notable competition. GiantSnowman 08:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NFOOTY has played in a national competition. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per stated above, and a for the fact that the article passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding, not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:36, 9 March 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) — Yash talk stalk 23:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not necessary to have an article on this. Questionable notability as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was kept at Afd just two weeks ago. Albeit a NAC after a withdrawal. However the consensus there was not to delete, with some very detailed explanations as to why. The renomination here is very weak. The nominator offers no explanation as to why we should reopen this again -- or even that he has bothered to read the just-closed Afd. Although I was for merging last time, I say keep, in that sufficient notability was established just last month. I see no valid reason to reopen this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The first AFD was closed just two weeks ago, and did show evidence that sufficient sourcing exists to get this over WP:GNG. Of course, a renomination would be perfectly valid if the nominator could show substantial new evidence of unsuitability not considered in the first discussion, but they haven't done that here — it's hard for me to read the nomination statement as anything more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid deletion rationale in and of itself. You don't have to like it, but you do have to respect that a keep consensus was established just two weeks ago and give the article time to get spruced up. If two or three years from now the article still hasn't been improved and all of the sources in the original AFD discussion have become unretrievable deadlinks, then there would be a valid reason to revisit whether it was time to overturn the first AFD. But not just two weeks after the first AFD closes as a keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- no new evidence or arguments presented. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:05, 13 March 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Marc Jones[edit]

Elliott Marc Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a bit borderline, so I'm taking this to AfD as opposed to speedy deleting it. Ultimately what we have here is someone who has a game that's moderately popular on Steam, but whose work has yet to really gain any sort of coverage in independent and reliable source.

Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

  1. Tilting at Pixels. This is an interview with a WP:SPS. Interviews tend to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia since some editors tend to see them as a WP:PRIMARY source, especially as not all publications fact check claims made during the interview. Beyond that, I'm not sure that the website would be seen as a RS on here, as there's not much on the site about their editorial processes and the other things that we'd need to know in order for it to be considered a WP:RS.
  2. IndieGameStand. This is an interview on a site that sells the game, so this would at best be considered a primary source since the site stands to benefit from publicizing the game. It even closes out with a note that you can purchase the game on their site. Primary sources cannot show notability regardless of how long the source is or what type it may be.
  3. Extreme Rankup. This one might have been usable, however what stood out was that this site offers advertising by way of sponsored posts. This is one of those things that can make a site unusable pretty quickly. Even if we count it as usable, it's fairly brief and I have to say that I raise an eyebrow at Jones being listed as 2017's most influential gamer, considering that it's only March and he's listed alongside extremely well known millionaires, especially as the coverage for him overall is very, very light.
  4. How To Online Income. This is a blog and it looks like it also offers marketing packages and is run by a marketing company.
  5. Reddit. This is a Reddit post about the product key revoke. This is considered to be a forum post and wouldn't be considered a notability giving RS since anyone can post on Reddit. I'm not saying that the post is wrong, just that we can't use things of that nature as a RS to show notability. We can typically only use this as a source in very, very specific situations and even those are limited, such as AMAs posted by a verified person or events on Reddit that have been reported on by secondary RS.
  6. Steam. This is a Steam post by Jones and as such, would be considered primary and cannot show notability.

Ultimately what we have here is a person who just doesn't pass notability guidelines. His game is popular on Steam but popularity doesn't give notability on Wikipedia. It only makes it more likely that something will be covered, but it isn't a guarantee - there are a ton of very popular games that never gain enough coverage to justify inclusion. I just couldn't find anything very substantial for this guy or the game. There are no reviews on Metacritic and I can't see where there's much coverage anywhere for the game, its developer, or his advertising company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of coverage in WP:VG/S-type reliable sources. It also doesn't help that most of the article focuses on "how amazing his game was" (it doesn't have an article) and his big "controversy" (which is sourced to Reddit and Steam discussion boards and also has no article.) And before anyone goes off to start those articles, I don't believe any combination of the person/game/controversy meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 8 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SD Gruope[edit]

SD Gruope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal content already covered by SasaraTV. Creator may have a COI. No references to suggest notability in article or search engines. Website link broken. Certes (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to SasaraTV as a valid search term. Source searches are not providing sources to qualify a standalone article. North America1000 01:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the spelling of Gruope. We may want to delete, and create SD Groupe or SD Group as a redirect instead, if anyone can confirm this company's actual name. http://sasaratv.blogspot.com/ has the "SasaraTV Logo Official 2016 SD Gruope And Sasara Network", so that may be the correct spelling. Certes (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon consideration, Delete. Source searches are not providing sources to qualify a standalone article. Struck my !vote above. North America1000 03:39, 14 March 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 Men and feminism. Opinions are split between merge and delete. Redirect is a compromise, allowing editors to merge any relevant content from the history.  Sandstein  13:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrier between Men and Feminism[edit]

The Barrier between Men and Feminism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay. TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. smileguy91talk - contribs 15:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, this page is a group project for post-secondary students and we are currently working on improving it. We would appreciate any specific feedback on how we can save this article from deletion. Thank you. HelloStarling (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is an essay, but that isn't in itself a reason to delete. Personally, I would merge this with Men and feminism. As it is, the two articles approach essentially the same topic area from opposite directions, but they aren't yet large enough to justify being split off from one another. If kept as it is, the article would need to be moved to Barrier between men and feminism as our article titles guideline says that article titles should be in sentence case (though even that title is a little clunky and I wonder if there isn't a better option). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Men and feminism. In the future, please vet any new article creation for class projects with the relevant WikiProjects (in this case WikiProject Feminism). They can provide advice on how and where to create new content. Kaldari (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unencyclopaedic and essay-like topic. Any useful content could just as easily be placed in men and feminism, which is nowhere near long enough to require a content fork. But I don't see anything worth merging in the current version. @HelloStarling: Your group would probably find more success editing the existing article rather than creating a new one on a substantially similar topic. I'd also strongly encourage you to read and follow the advice at Wikipedia:Student assignments. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- I think I would be better off that "barriers between men and feminisms" with "men and feminism", due to the fact that this article was meant to take greater look into the barriers between men and feminisms...Joshydkz (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)joshydkz[reply]
  • Delete Agree with other comments. Jeff Quinn (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uh-oh. An essay like title. Lead that does a poor job of defining the topic and talks about Intersectionality, without a reference and without reusng the term later. Then discussion of some polls of unclear relevance, a definition of feminism, popular (according to whom?) theories of what? This seems like a poory written essay. WP:TNT. PS. I have now read other comments and I see this is an educational project, so I will put my instructor hat on (I am a professor of sociology and I ask my students to write Wikipedia content too). Well, I am sorry if the students reading this will feel my review was harsh (welcome to peer review, it does not get better - ever, ask your professor :P), but without repeating myself or others, the topic is poorly defined, fails WP:GNG, and at best few sentences could be merged to some other articles. Your (and by that I mean both the students, but also instructor/wiki ambassadors) main mistake here - was not defining your concept properly, and not reading guidelines like WP:NOTESSAY. Starting with an essay-like title is a big no-no for an encyclopedic title. There are thousands of missing articles on issues related to feminism, but they are encyclopedic topics (theories, etc.), not essays. Kaldari very wisely noted above you should check with WikiProject Feminism, it is active and I am sure within few days someone would have told you you need to change the title. Chosing the right topic is a key. You can look at links of requested or weak articles listed at said WikiProject's front page: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences#Feminism_and_women.27s_studies, Category:Stub-Class Feminism articles, Category:Feminism stubs, etc. Or take any feminism/women studies encyclopedia/handbook/etc., look at index and start typing in until you get a no-page result from Wikipedia, and you are good. Wikioedia is an encyclopedia, you need to create encyclopedia topics, not essays. I hope that helps (yes, peer review can be constructive sometimes too, just learn not to get your feelings hurt too much :>). Good luck, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Men and feminism, as this is just an aspect of that broader article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:25, 14 March 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. Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Urquiaga[edit]

Chris Urquiaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability for this encyclopaedia – appears not to meet WP:ARTIST. This may well be an attempt at self-promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I userfied this as an obvious autobiography. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JzG: After the userification, I closed this AFD. But since then, another editor copied the content back to mainspace, so I have reopened this discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References confirm existence rather than notability. Also note that the article's claim of the subject having received coverage on ABC and FOX news were, in fact, merely local morning appearances on regional affiliates; these were not national network broadcast appearances. The Kennedy Center's honor award is merely one of many honors awarded to Washington DC area high school students. Neither of these represent achievements of encyclopedic worthiness. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, it seemed that the article lacked credible sources. I did some more research on the artist on the internet and included more legitimate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiserma (talk • contribs) — Weiserma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A number of the "sources" you added were invalid, e.g. iTunes track links. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weiserma, if – as appears overwhelmingly probable – you have a professional or paid relationship to the subject of the article, you must declare it when discussing the page about him. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not paid relationship to the subject (Chris Urquiaga). I do know him and have been to his concerts. --Weiserma (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rampant self-promotion with no evidence of coverage in WP:RS beyond simple listings and other non-significant entries. Most of search results lead to social media, YouTube, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Axelle Jovenin[edit]

Axelle Jovenin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGYMNAST. Even though she won a silver medal in the national championships as France did not medal as a team in the last Olympics or World championships this means she doesn't quite make the grade yet. page already deleted once here and twice on fr.wiki Domdeparis (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet the notability requirements for gymnasts. Further, the article is mostly in French. This could be fixed by translating it, but that will not fix the other problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a French speaker and translator and as the subject doesn't meet the criteria I didn't bother translating it especially as the links provided do not prove notability as per GNG. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--178.222.144.4 (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of PopCap games. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TipTop (video game)[edit]

TipTop (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since January 2011. The article was deprodded by The Drover's Wife. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I couldn't find a single reliable source that covered the subject. (Keep in mind there's a lot of false positives due to the many items at Tip Top, especially the 2013 film.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of PopCap games, where it is mentioned. czar 21:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 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 Entertainment Studios#Syndicated series. This is the centre of the rationales and redirects are cheap. There is consensus that David Tornheim's sources shown don't display any notability (non-admin closure) J947 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Justice with Judge Karen[edit]

Supreme Justice with Judge Karen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. Reference #2 in the article is a youtube search for the subject and Reference #1 is the show's official website. A WP:BEFORE search did not give any reliable sources (only sources like IMDb). -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 19:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Entertainment Studios#Syndicated series, the producer of the series; utterly generic court show which doesn't litigate (or even arbitrate) actual cases and instead uses actors to perform California small claims court transcripts. Nate • (chatter) 09:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "utterly generic court show which doesn't litigate (or even arbitrate) actual cases and instead uses actors to perform California small claims court". Does that matter? Are the shows like Judge Judy, Divorce Court or The People's Court (that are obviously notable) that are equally generic any better? Our articles describe those three as "arbitration-based reality court shows". But they are not even close to a real trial. But even if you and I think the shows are not impressive, does it matter? It's whether they are discussed in WP:RS per WP:GNG (and WP:BROADCAST) that determines notability, right? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the jurists on those shows actually adjudicate the cases presented before them in some form, even if in arbitration. The court shows from Entertainment Studios like this one merely take public domain court transcripts and have actors play them out while a former jurist acts as an 'authority' figure to sell it to stations, along with schedule filling on ES's Justice Central channel. You can't get on this show unless you have SAG-AFTRA representation and are a working actor, even if you have the most compelling case ever. With real arbitrated court shows we can definitely get more sources involving litigants talking about experiences; here there's just no there there because of the usual 'names changed so any resemblance to real life is coincidental' obscuring so that a Pomona eviction dispute on the show will be muddled to the point of anonymity. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment They definitely don't discuss the show in detail though, and most of them are of the 'this is what's coming this fall (boilerplate from show's PR)' variety of writing with very little follow-up after its premiere. It hasn't had any moments that have attracted any pop culture attention. Like all of the producer's shows, it's a sanitized court show using actors to re-enact transcripts so by design, it'll never have an 'it' moment making it stand out in any way. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 10 March 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) GSS (talk|c|em) 17:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schöneiche bei Berlin tramway[edit]

Schöneiche bei Berlin tramway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable tram system. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES. The German Wikipedia article de:Straßenbahn_Schöneiche_bei_Berlin (and others: there are no less than 7 language version articles) offers us a much better picture. This tiny, placeholder-ish stub needs expansion, not deletion. I can see no reason why WP:RAILOUTCOMES would not apply to this rail network comprising 20 stations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{Expand German|Straßenbahn Schöneiche bei Berlin|date=March 2017}} to the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons stated above. Expansion of article will be beneficial. --NoGhost (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Shawn in Montreal. Nördic Nightfury 14:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - A well developed and historic rail line. The nom could've just clicked the German WP link and avoided this. --Oakshade (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shawn in Montreal's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 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. As per everybody except the brothers Lee themselves.  Sandstein  13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deduction Theory[edit]

Deduction Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Mister Lee may use the term 'in the (unintelligible) sense laid out here; does anybody else?? TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this subject, Lee published his work in a public academic repository named Philipapers.org on January 9, 2017. This work satisfies the conditions of the primary sources. Kenneth Kijun Lee, Chase Kihwan Lee, <A Theory Explains Deep Learning>, PhilPapers And there is an article that introduces this subject in the third academic magazine. This magazine is a computer science magazine published in the United States. This medium is an academic magazine that can be proved objectively and circulated and recognized in both academia and industry. Computer Vision News - March 2017 Therefore, the conditions of the second sources are met. In March, 2017, Lee and his article introduced and linked on the Spotlight News column in an academic magazine called Computer Vision News. The magazine did not only mention superficial facts about him and his works, but gave positive complement and concrete links to the reader. The magazine said, “Study Deep Learning from Scratch - A Theory Explains DL Nice and well-written beginner’s guide to study Deep Learning. Cured job by Kenneth Lee and younger brother Chase Lee using Korean adages and Plato’s theory of forms.” Computer Vision News is an academic magazine devoted to topics related to computer vision, machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, and other algorithmic computing. It can be confirmed objectively through the publication history and contents of the medium. The contents of the magazine are not written by Lee himself. It is written by the editor from the magazine. The editor is Ralph Anzarouth and if you need a third party confirmation, please contact <ralph@rsip.co.il> I will link to a picture of email copy from the editor. The item thus appears to have met and validated the document criteria because it meets the requirements of the primary sources and satisfies the conditions of the secondary sources through a reliable specialist magazine. Chaseklee (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, are you Chase Kihwan Lee? Because if not, your username seems designed to give the impression that you are him, and that runs afoul of our username policy. Conversely, if you are him, there are clearly Conflict of interest issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Kenneth Kijun Lee who is mentioned in this article. The ID “Chaseklee” is Chase Kihwan Lee himself, that was right. However, writing a subjective claim on Wikipedia would violate the neutrality principle and confilct of interest issue, but it is still legitimate to quote objective sources. In Wikipedia, people can be admitted to mention their own thoughts if they can quote from the primary sources and proved by the secondary sources which is independent and objective opinion. This document is not about Chase Kihwan Lee or Kenneth Kijun Lee themsleves as their personal life or biography with subjective describing, but about the deduction theory that I(Kenneth Kijun Lee) claimed as an objective opinion. I presented a research document that was published in a public academic paper repository as a primary sources, and I completed a third person proof as a secondary source by being introduced in a specialist magazine. And it is the Computer Vision News magazine that proves the third person as the secondary sources in this document, not me(Kenneth Kijun Lee) or Chase Kihwan Lee. Please do not confuse objective facts. If you want to question the COI issue, you will have to ask or confirm what kind of relationship the author of the magazine has with us(Both Kenneth Lee and Chase Lee). But as far as I know, the magazine is a recognized engineering magazine run by an independent editorial staff. So it seems that COI issues doesn’t apply in this case. KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps too soon to declare notability. If it really is a new field of mathematics (or is it philosophy, marketing, or what?) then it would need to wait until it is is mentioned by more than one other person. Such fields develop over many years, and individual theories come and go with each graduate student at least. Maybe a native speaker of the Korean language might be able to offer a better judgement, but there may be few of them. W Nowicki (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, let's recall the common rules of Wikipedia. The rules of Wikipedia are to present primary sources in an public research document and to complete an entry condition if a third person which is independent and reliable source proves the secondary sources. This is not my personal claim, but the rules of Wikipedia for everyone, and there is no such saying “more than one other person”. I have never argued that the deduction theory by Kenneth Lee(me) outperforms other theories, but I only recorded facts that happened objectively by quoting from the sources. If my deduction theory is error in actual reality, or if it is contradicted by another research, that fact will be recorded here as well. This is a process of fair record and debate. Rejecting it without reasonable grounds can be discrimination. And the primary and secondary sources I presented are all in English, and the secondary source as the magazine is an computer engineering magazine published in the United States. There are some website external links by Korean language in the document, but they are only auxiliary references. So it can not be argued because of the sources by Korean language. KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above, does not meet WP:GNG. Also agree that with WP:COI and the references provided, seems promotional in intent. Perhaps if it becomes more widespread. Ies (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will refute your claim by the contents of the GNG that you linked. General notability can not obtained by just a reason that it is known to many people. Because many people can have false information, prejudice, bias and stereotypes. The way to obtain general notability is well documented in the GNG content. It is only completed by a reliable, independent and objective secondary sources. This is exactly what you linked from the GNG. In this post, I completed the third-party proof as Computer Vision News, a reliable, independent, and objective secondary sources. But you do not seem to confirm that it is true or not. If you want to make General notability a problem, you should not be concerned about "being known to many people" and should determine whether Computer Vision News is reliable, independent, or objective. It is not convincing to address the issue of General notability without proving it. The same is true for COI issues. You do not know if I have intentions for gainning my interest by writing this document or not. It's an individual subjective thought. Your claim that I have intentions for personal interest is also subjective opinion of the individual. How to prove this is also shown in the COI document. It's a very simple solution that checking reliable, independent, and objective secondary sources of proof. I finished third person proof with the secondary sources. You can verify anytime whether this is correct or not. But by superficially linking rules, you can not prove your subjective claim.
  • Strong delete--Pure and typical promotion.Does not meet WP:GNG. Also agree with issues of WP:COI.Whatever the heck(mathematics/economics/phil.) it is,I support W Nowicki that individual theories come and vanish.It's just too too soon to have an article on the topic.Winged Blades Godric 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to make a claim, you have to provide reasonable evidence. What grounds do you claim that I violated the Wikipedia rules? And how can you prove it? It is unreasonable to suggest only and agreeing with someone who has the same opinion with you. To convince your argument, don’t you think you should prove that what I wrote so far is not true or that the sources I quoted is not true? I think that many unfounded opinions are violence using power of multiple subjective opinion and that are not objectively justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethLeeDeductionTheory (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 March 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  14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Heapy[edit]

Steve Heapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing here to suugest that this individual is anything more than a bloke doing his job. TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what I see in Gnews, we do have interviews with him in trades press but I agree that he doesn't seem to yet be independently notable. I'd suggest a redirect to the parent article on his company, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant see anything noteworthy that would pass the bar for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Moved to draftspace. Will nominate redirect for G6. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indulgence: A Saga of Lights[edit]

Indulgence: A Saga of Lights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD removed bu User:Adam9007, who claims that there is a credible claim of significance. What, exactly, pray??? This is yet another unremarkable chunk of guff by a band who are not notable- there was an article on them but it seems to have been userfied after a fahion. Googling the band producwed a paltry 4,600 hits on google; facebook, amazon, & so on. TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article creator has moved this article to draftspace, as was done with the band page when it was also nominated at AfD. Suggest a procedural close on a similar basis. If it had not been moved, I would also have recommended an A9 speedy--I utterly fail to see where the claim of significance is here. --Finngall talk 02:58, 12 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mallu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mallu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT. There may be a place for this information in some other article, but which I do not know. I think that as a stand-alone article it would run the risk of becoming a POV fork. Oh, and there is not a single reference. TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD pzzles me- there seemsa to be no reason given for closing it.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Malayali people unless some sources indicating notability are added to the article. utcursch | talk 20:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is clearly an ethnic slur, but I couldn't find a RS to support that. If a RS can be found, redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - clearly fails GNG Spiderone 09:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. At this point, with the current referencing, can't see a reason to redirect. Onel5969 TT me 16:02, 14 March 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) — Yash talk stalk 05:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Huemer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Huemer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2006, re-created by an editor with a WP:COI. I think this gent fails WP:PROF. The article as I found it was extensively referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources - "reviewed on libertarian website X, source, review on libertarian website X" - plus blogs and other unreliable sources. In the end, nothing to indicate a major body of scholarship with a reputation in the field. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting WP:PROF. Google Scholar shows highly cited books (which were reviewed in academic journals when published) and papers. This is a decade later and he is now a full professor. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PROF #1 is met per [9] and [10]. (We have an article on Ethical Intuitionism too btw). SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- meets WP:AUTHOR; here's sample reviews:
Review: The Problem Of Political Authority: An Examination Of The Right To Coerce And The Duty To Obey By Huemer, Michael
Reviewed Work: The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Huemer, Michael
Review by: George Klosko
Ethics, Vol. 124, No. 2 (January 2014), pp. 412-417
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
DOI: 10.1086/673423
Stable URL: link
MICHAEL HUEMER: Ethical Intuitionism
Michael Huemer, Ethical Intuitionism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, 309pp., $85.00 (hbk), ISBN 1403989680.
Reviewed by David McNaughton, Florida State University )link
Sufficient library holdings for multiple books as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 from GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May have been too soon in 2006, but the reviews linked above and GScholar cites now make a convincing case for the subject being an influential philosopher. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 11 March 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. Clearly passes GNG and GEO. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saddle River Township, New Jersey[edit]

Saddle River Township, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of importance. There is no significance in the history, and aren't sources as well. Fails WP:GNG. May be merged with the modern day article Saddle River, New Jersey, if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a historic municipality that existed for 240 years and covered much of the state's most populous county is a rather strong claim of importance for a place with extreme significance in history. Sources are present as well. I'm not sure if this is a sick joke, if the account has been hijacked or if the nominator has even the most basic understanding of obligations under WP:BEFORE, but this article passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Alansohn (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, I'd rather redirect this to Saddle Brook, New Jersey.24.102.156.6 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with redirecting Hohokus Township, New Jersey to Mahwah, New Jersey.24.102.156.6 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As is redirecting Union Township, Bergen County, New Jersey to Lyndhurst, New Jersey.24.102.156.6 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also redirected Midland Township, New Jersey to Rochelle Park, New Jersey.24.102.156.6 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Several users have stated that these subjects (and the Loma Alto de la Bandera article) are too unrelated to bundle together. Additionally, not much weight can be given to the sole delete !vote in the discussion (after the nomination), because a simple review of the user's contributions shows that the user !voted in several discussions in rapid succession during this time period, including !voting in a discussion one minute before this one and in another one minute after, which suggests drive-by !voting without source searching having actually occurred. As this nomination lacked Find sources templates for all but one subject, it's highly unlikely that each name was copied into a search engine with searches then being performed (such as in GNews and Gbooks) relative to the timeframe of the user's overall contributions during this time period. Furthermore, as per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. No prejudice against speedy renomination using separate nominations for each subject/topic. North America1000 03:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Harquail[edit]

David Harquail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable businessman, only link is to company biography, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Using AfD as opposed to "lower" deletion forms because I am also bundling the following articles into this AfD for the same reasons:

David Garofalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joachim Drees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oscar González Rocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Leonidas Fragiadakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emmanuel Panagiotakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olaf Koch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jose Maria Alvarez-Pallete Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jean Pierre Mustier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carlo Messina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rainer Seele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turgay Durak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gertjan Lankhorst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ali Ahmed Al-Kuwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Loma Alto de la Bandera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards, DrStrauss talk 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how bundling here can work: these are different, unrelated people. You've bundled 15 people from different parts of the world. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I see: the additional connection is that they were all created by one editor, @QatarStarsLeague:. But you didn't notify him from from what I can see? If not, that seems to me to be rather bad form, to mass nominate 15 articles and not inform him. Well he knows now if he didn't before. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, the way you've done it omits the standard header with the Google search links for all but top name. It's vitally important for you and anyone !voting at this AFD to do their WP:BEFORE work and check online if there are reliable sources for each and every name. The way you have structured this doesn't seem to easily allow this. Therefore, I have no choice but to offer a procedural oppose at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, forgot to do that: Twinkle isn't working for me at the moment - pinging QatarStarsLeague. Apologies for that oversight. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I hate to break it to you @DrStrauss:, but one of the bundled articles isn't about a person. I'm unable to !vote because of this oversight. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all BLP rules that articles on living people need to be well sourced should be respected. No one has presented any evidence that any of these people or other articles cover a notable subject. Why not? Because they do not do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: Did you look at every single one of these articles before voting? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I did and they are all one source junk articles that show no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that one of them is about a mountain, not a person, didn't come up? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article on the mountain that suggests it is notable. I stand by my vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEXIST - at AfD, it is not the content in the article that determines notability, it is the available sourcing that can be located through a reasonable search. Unfortunately, due to the unconventional nature of this AfD bundling, the usual search tools are not available. In the case of geographical features like mountains, WP:MAPOUTCOMES states that mountains usually survive AfD discussions as long as they are featured on maps, which this one is. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: When you checked the article on the mountain (which I'm pretty sure, did you look at the versions in the other 3 Wikis? (Spanish, Swedish, and Cebuano). It would be unusual to not have an English article, when 3 others exist - 2 of which have lots of references. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - there are 15 articles on this nomination, with not much connecting them. Looking at your edit history, you spent 1 minute on this AFD. How did you have time to research all 15 enough to vote, without the normal links to do the research, and without a single other editor in the discussion presenting any arguments to delete? Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close with no prejudice against relisting in the correct way. The unconventional bundling of subjects that aren't related (some of which meet the GNG, some don't) in a way that makes it impossible for editors to use the usual tools before they !vote makes this particular AfD discussion untenable. No fully informed conclusion can be reached that applies to every single article in the bundle. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close - concern as noted above. Also, mountains don't have to meet WP:NPEOPLE - not even those named after people. I've only looked at 3 articles closely. Loma Alto de la Bandera appears to meet WP:GEOLAND. Emmanuel Panagiotakis appears to meet WP:GNG with in-depth features like [18] and [19] (though the reliability of the source might be questionable - however, there are many, many, many news articles mentioning this person, I've only looked at a couple. And Ali Ahmed Al-Kuwari gives me a couple hundred news hits. If all the articles are like this, it would take a good hour or so just to assess notability, and we'd have a very long discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 11 March 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) Winged Blades Godric 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Robert[edit]

Rudolf Robert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. CPost1 (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do these references establish notability? To me these sources seem to reinforce the idea of "trivial mention" of his contribution as described in the General Notability Guildline[1] under the subsection "Significant coverage."CPost1 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the GNG threshold has been met from the sources already in the article. I'd suggest that the nominator brush up on the GNG before nominating another article for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the GNG before nominating this for deletion. This article and its sources establish the subject as a person who:
  1. Was in the Holocaust, and not all Holocaust victims are notable.
  2. Was one of many gabbai in the Jewish Community of Berlin. There are fourteen others in the referenced list. This does not necessarily establish the subjects notability.
  3. Gave testimony at the Nuremberg trials. Does this alone establish notability of this person and warrant a stand-alone page for him, or would noting his contribution in the "Overview of the Trails" section of the Nuremberg Trials page[2] be more appropriate? The People Notable for Only One Event[3] Section of the Wikipedia Notablity page is where my argument for deletion of this page is coming from. Specifically this section: "the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." CPost1 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 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. as G3 (Blatant hoax) by RickinBaltimore (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 16:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Kid[edit]

Real Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. None of the references support notability of the subject (they are all for a completely different person). Article has been nominated for both CSD & PROD previously; nominating for XfD in order to get community consensus and put this to bed once & for all... Jack Frost (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotion, doesn't meet notability criteria as per nominator. Melcous (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: subject does not meet the criteria per WP:MUSICBIO. JayCodec (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The references seem to show a completely different person). Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. MassiveYR 🌟 (TALK) 20:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - made up sources to urls for articles not about subject - looks like based on Rich the Kid article. KylieTastic (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - as a hoax. Concur with KylieTastic that the sourcing is for Rich the Kid, but with the news article names changed to pretend to be about Real the Kid. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just to point out the hoaxishness, his EMA charting single (peak position 96), "Be About It" is released in the future on 17 March 2017. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UnSettled: Inside The Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits[edit]

UnSettled: Inside The Strange World of Asbestos Lawsuits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are some mentions found on News, and while 2 are more than trivial, they don't rise to the level of passing WP:GNG. And the documentary clearly doesn't pass WP:NFILM. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just isn't enough out there to show that this movie passes notability guidelines. It exists and can be watched, but there's very little out there about it. The Buzzfeed article was actually submitted by one of their random users, so that would be considered a WP:SPS at best since Buzzfeed doesn't factcheck its user submissions like they do the posts written by their staff. The only thing that I could find that was halfway usable was the Legal NewsLine piece that's already in the article. Everything else is either a press release reprint or a WP:TRIVIAL mention. If someone wants to userfy this they can, but it just doesn't pass NFILM right now. To be honest, it might never pass - documentary films like this are kind of niche and they tend to either make it big ala Tickled or SuperSize Me or they don't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've worked a fair bit in the documentary film area and in fairness there is a large middle ground between big hits and insignificant films: this just doesn't seem to have made it into that large mid-range, even. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokyogirl79. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  13:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderchef[edit]

Wunderchef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small startup that is not notable per WP:NCORP. The refs, while in Swedish, seem to be based mostly on interviews with founder. One says there are 1000 registered users. WP:TOOSOON. Also contains some highly promotional language: "This new business model disrupt traditional industries by creating new sources of supply and rely on curation for developing quality and self-attainment of maturity from the vendors, or the people operating on behalf of vendors." MB 04:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Alač[edit]

Aleksandra Alač (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not enough sources here to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 15:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough sources here to pass the general notability guidelines. No such user (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Except the questionable IMDb I do not see any other sources supporting the notability guidelines.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is one source cited (IMDB) and no other reliable sources available (failing WP:NRV). Based on those roles she has held, she does not meet the criteria in WP:ENT to justify the existence of an article. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. I cannot see any other justification to keep. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack Frost: The WP:NRV that you refer to says in bold letters Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. No such user (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Let's get to the basics from WP:BEFORE: If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources.; Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search,. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.[...]or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Except in rare (WP:BLP, WP:TNT and WP:COPYVIO) circumstances, we don't delete bad articles (such as this one) about notable subjects. The subject has received "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. And very recently, the nominator has been (IIRC) topic-banned from nominating the articles of AfD because of his failure to put minimum due diligence. No such user (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been topic banned from anything. Beyond this, this is a BLP, so BLP issues apply, and so we should delete the article if it lacks reliable sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @No such user Google search is not a selective search engine. What you listed above are no more than blogs from some third rated online media (Glorija, Vecernji, Latinica etc)--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ah, apparently I now need to be able to read Bosnian. Though I did chuck the first couple of google articles I found through translate when I looked the first time, and wasn't impressed... When I searched then (and again now): 3 news results, 1,040 google web results, 0 book results, and 0 world news archive (via a work database) results. To address these suggested sources one-by-one: 1) A third-rate media interview. Does not establish notability. 2) A series of photos tagged with the subject's name; most have no accompanying text. Does not establish notability. 3) Another series of photos tagged with the subject's name, some are of a meal. Some appear to be of a theatrical production she was in. None are of her alone. Does not establish notability. 4) A profile consisting of her name, photo and a short list of productions she has been in on a website which appears to be a general directory of theatre productions. Does not establish notability. 5) An interview about her life in general, and advice on matchmaking on some fourth-rate celebrity website. Does not establish notability. 6) A ~2 minute interview on youtube (in Bosnian), so I cannot assess its veracity. 7) An article on a fourth-rate celebrity tabloid website, which mentions her in passing as the new fling of some actor. Does not establish notability. 8) An interview with another fourth-rate celebrity tabloid. Does not establish notability (to give you some idea of what sort of website, the tagline of the next article is "Rumour has it, THIS REASON FOR COMING TO SERBIA Ana was in Belgrade for a visit to a gynaecologist". 9) 1.5 paragraphs in a 5 paragraph story on that weeks episode of the soap opera she's in on yet another fourth-rate celebrity tabloid website. Does not establish notability. Therefore, so far as I can tell not one of them provides "significant coverage in reliable sources..." I will freely admit though that I do not read a jot of Bosnian, so I am relying on a web translation, the opinion of a Bosnian colleague who has been bribed with coffee & chocolate to read through the sources as a second opinion (her opinion of the news sources; "I wouldn't wipe my arse with any of them"), and my browsing through other articles in the sources to attempt to assess what they are. In summary, I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the notability of this article's subject. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack Frost: First, thank you (no sarcasm whatsoever) for the effort that you put in investigating this, which apparently also included a financial investment of yours :). I will largely agree with your analysis, that the subject is an actor in a few (notable, though) TV series and theater plays who achieved status of a minor celebrity, much of it through her physical appearance, and thus largely covered in tabloids more about her personal life than about her acting. However, I still think there are enough useful sources to make a start-class article and that the coverage (tabloids or not) raises above the GNG bar; Wikipedia is not only about the subjects we like. What I am (obviously) annoyed about is the total lack of attempt at WP:BEFORE by the nominator and several other editors with an apparent deletionist agenda who care much more about some MMORPG AfD-point-scoring than about site policies and reader benefit; quoting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoran Terzić for one: My nominating articles that result in "keep" hurts my AfD percentage. I don't want to come across as a staunch defender of this bad article about a borderline notable actor, and Wikipedia can surely do without it... meh. I honestly don't care much; enough time wasted overall. No such user (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, the "2) A series of photos tagged with the subject's name; most have no accompanying text. Does not establish notability." [29] actually is an index of articles tagged with the subject's name, of which there is a dozen about her. Hello! (magazine) (Serbian edition) is a trashy tabloid though. No such user (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided above, obviously language a difficulty but appears to easily meet GNG. And a minor clarification, no topic ban yet in place for the nominator, the ANI discussion is still open. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the IP's clarification below. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and per Jack Frost.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @No such user: are you able to update the article with inline references to the articles you linked above? Unfortunately the language is a barrier to referencing the article appropriately or I would do it myself. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "references" are blogs from a bunch of third rated online tabloids.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Really? OK thanks for that, I've changed my vote. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PageantUpdater: No, neither of the sources I linked is a blog. Those are online editions of mostly printed publications, easily obtained from first 3 pages of (numerous) Google results. True, many are tabloids of patchy reliability (well, she's that kind of actress, if you know what I mean), but they demonstrate the subject's notability, which has been raised as an issue. Namely Blic, Večernji list and her home Belgrade Drama Theatre should suffice, as they pass the RS bar. As for updating the article, I could do that, but I'm kind of tired doing WP:HEY for AfDs on subjects out of my field of interest just because nominators can't be arsed to do follow the proper investigation before nominating. As for Jack Frost, who cites WP:NRV – see my reply above. No such user (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add Večernje novosti to the list: [30]. No such user (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion to update with sources was based on the fact you appear to understand the language and thus would have a better ability to assess any potential sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user I do not think that this user even read [3] or [7], for example. The "reference" [3] is not about this actress rather about her father Aleksandar. The "reference" [7] is about the actress new love Milos Bikovic. The rest of "references" are more about the actress' personal life and appearance than about her achievements. In the "ref"-list we cannot see much (better say nothing) from movie and theatre critics about her acting performances and achievements.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've never seen a Wikipedia article that existed in 3 other languages be deemed to be not notable before. Seem to be enough Google News hits. 3,700 Google hits. Are you all looking at this properly? Nfitz (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear I'd missed the "also known as". It's really hard to assess the sources without understanding the language though. Strange that her most common name appears to be Anja yet the article is called Aleksandra --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Google search engine is not selective. Those three languages are actually the same language. Notability of this actress is just local and not focused to the actress professional profile. Her professional profile is not impressive therefore not notable.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, humans then have to go through the hits to determine if any of the thousands of sources meet GNG. Here's some more here and here. Serbian and Croatian are the same language - I think wars have started on smaller claims! Obviously very similar. Nfitz (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of you response? You offered two new Google searches which extracted info from all CDN locations, therefore multiplying unnecessary the same information many times. All I can see she had one or two main roles in some movies and theatre performances and supporting roles in a few other movies/performances locally in Belgrade Serbia or in Zagreb Croatia. Which way it might be worth of the world attention remains beyond my knowledge.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The two new searches were to provide more potential sources. Main roles in some movies and theatre performances? That could meet WP:NACTOR if the films and/or theatre performances themselves are notable. World attention is not important. If they are notable in any of the Yugoslav nations that is good enough. Or if they have a large fanbase or a significant cult following. If the tabloids are full of her, doesn't that mean she have a lot of fans? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Learn about CDN first to understand Google search hits. WP:NACTOR says
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.-No, Her films are not notable, not multiple
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. -No
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. -No--178.222.144.4 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what a CDN is - nothing about it on N:ACTOR. Not sure you are evaluating properly, her film is notable (or else her Croatian film wouldn't have an English web page), but her role doesn't seem significant. Her television role in Ruža vjetrova seems significant, being a lead who did over 200 episodes, and the show is notable - but it seems unique, so multiple is not met. Does she have a large fan base - you say no ... but why is she in the tabloids with all the details about her personal life? It's hard to think of an American who'd be in the tabloids who we don't consider notable. Nfitz (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main role in 200-episodes long and regionally broadcasted Ruža vjetrova alone should suffice. She also played supporting roles in The Scent of Rain in the Balkans (TV series) (confirmed by Blic, some 5 episodes according to IMDB). The roles in Montevideo, God Bless You! and sr:Ubice mog oca were rather small AFAICT but both were major productions and hugely popular. She also played supporting roles in some 15 theater productions by Belgrade Drama Theatre, a major Serbian theatre [31]. As Nfitz says, her being all over the tabloids (even if we can't use them as RS) should suffice as proof of popularity/fan base/notability. I don't quite understand the apparent zeal to delete this article. No such user (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty, I couldn't give a flying toss whether or not this article was deleted or not. Quite simply, I recognise that I tend to be too verbose, with a strange habit of flogging the poor, common, comma to death in my writing and editing. Therefore, I contribute to the project in different ways; by participating in recent changes patrol, and by attempting to provide another set of eyes on WP:AfD. Am I going to lose any sleep over the fact that this article continues to exist, or not, as the case may be; absolutely not. But based off my reading and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and the evidence I can find on the web, I have formed the opinion that the article isn't eligible to be included in the project. So I put forward my opinion, and I do so prepared to defend that opinion (as one should in a reasoned discourse) as well as change it. I don't know that I see a huge amount of zeal either for or against the deletion of the article; just a group of editors putting forward their ideas, prepared to defend them, in an attempt to develop a consensus. To an academic (of sorts) like me; it truely is a wonderful thing. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz= No such user. So, there is only one soap opera she played the main role in, Wikipedia requests many notable ones. ... her being all over the tabloids -- the tabloids all about advertisement and a cheap entertainment and they are by no means a proof a huge fan base; it might be the number of her followers on tweeter, for instance. How about the unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? We clearly see that ms Alac notability fail all three Wikipedia requirements listed under WP:NACTOR. Moreover, neither of you two (or just one?) understands how the Google search engine works. The same tabloid article could be replicated over many, maybe hundreds, CDN locations and the Google search will hit all of them not being able to understand that they are the same. It is quite easy to see it if browsing the offered searches.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello indef-blocked user Vujkovica brdo; I see [32] you are pretty knowledgeable about certain Špiro Kulišić, among other numerous fields of your expertise, apparently including Google search algorithms. Still not tired of throwing your pearls of wisdom to us mere mortals? No such user (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NACTOR with notable TV role and intense tabloid interest. Also meets WP:GNG with feature articles such as this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of those articles does address her profession. By itself not enough to signify notability. If the translation is decent, and it looks to be, it's written like a publicity piece, ergo questionable as WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even, according to non-reliable ImDB, she hasn't "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," and so fails WP:ACTOR according that guidelines exact language. Further, some of the tv programs and movies listed in her article look like AfD candidates to me. I realize that translations exist, but when there are no English language references at all, it raises a red notability flag. This post definitely is intended to refute the previous keep recommendation. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we all agree the one TV role she did - where she did 100+ episodes, was significant. After that we have other TV appearances, movie appearance which may be borderline. But note also her stage appearances. Two of the references I provided were for her appearance in "Peter Pan" which seems itself to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of those are WP:INTERVIEWs, and not incisive, which makes them far more problematic than you're claiming. The only source for her participation is IMDB—not a reliable source. I'm more willing to admit that she's probably notable, but see my longer 'essay' below for the structural problem. Tapered (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the policy is not with you: WP:GNG Sources do not have to be available online or written in English., WP:V/WP:RSUE: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. No such user (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said, but not valid. There's no way to ascertain the WP:RS of the Balkan sources. There's not much cultural interchange between that area, and "the West." It's not like Der Spiegel, LeMonde, El Pais, or Corriere della Sera—there are no Balkan equivalents to these famous (and other not so famous) reliable non-English sources. The problem is best illustrated by The Scent of Rain in the Balkans. The article is poorly sourced, and a google search doesn't produce much main stream/reliable coverage. It's a best seller in the Balkans, and the few mentions in English are at least neutral—but not from known reliable sources. My point is that, for Balkan arts and entertainment, finding reliable sources is a structural problem because of the lack on interchange with the mainstream West. It's not Wikipedia's task to rectify the situation. Tapered (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per my "delete" this actress's article links to many articles that are candidates for AfD. Tapered (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked at the references in all four Wikis with articles, and found:
English: blog, IMDb
Croatian: 404, not in citation, 404, IMDb
Serbian: IMDb
Serbo-Croat: IMDb
I appreciate the difficulties of searching in Cyrillic, but in this instance there seems to be zero third-party WP:RS coverage whatsoever. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I imagine that a Balkan editor could and would have found it. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough RS to squeak through. IMDB (like Wikipedia) is not an RS. Inlinetext (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if there were three other articles in other languages on this BLP that had decent, translatable sources, then I'd say let's close this and move on. However, there's no there here. She's a run of the mill minor actress with four Wikipedia articles, which just proves a tautology. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 16 March 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  14:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donna (film)[edit]

Donna (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM: No significant coverage in reliable sources. Some sources claims it was selected for screening at the Cannes International Film Festival but I can't see if it was actually screened and those sources appear to be multiple versions of the same press release material. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in the article don't amount to significant coverage. Searching found nothing helpful. No award wins or nominations. Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 17:59, 6 March 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 Charmed#Other media. (non-admin closure) J947 18:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed: The Final Chapter[edit]

Charmed: The Final Chapter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the guidelines of notability (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) as it has not never entered any charts and has never won a single award and has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America1000 03:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eli et Papillon[edit]

Eli et Papillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This basically just asserts that they exist, the end, and sources it to one piece of reliable source coverage and one interview on a blog -- but the interview doesn't assist notability, because it represents the band talking about themselves, and the one piece of real reliable source coverage isn't enough by itself to give them "notability because media coverage exists" in the absence of actually having accomplished any specific thing that would pass NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RigWorld[edit]

RigWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence for notability. the references are noticces of minor awards only, DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. agree that awards are minor and do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The awards appear to be national Ghanaian awards and may therefore establish notability. Unless this isn't the case, I'm leaning towards "Keep". -- HighKing++ 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete -- un unremarkable private company going about its business. The minor industry awards do not amount to notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 10 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaif Ali[edit]

Kaif Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ali has had one role in a notable production. However even that roles seems to have been appearing in Episode 362 of the work. This is not enough to count as significant, and the guidelines say multiple significant roles in notable productions, not just one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 6 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Sakurada filmography[edit]

Sakura Sakurada filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collection of non-notable titles. Significant RS coverage to justify the existence of this list not found. All citations are to primary sources.

In addition, the guidance at the porn project discourages porn filmographies and suggests providing a link to where the they can be found. At most, a brief and partial list of notable films and career highlights may be included in the main article.

For an AfD on a similar list, please see recently deleted:

I am also nominating the following related pages because these list articles have similar content and scope, and are equally non-notable:

The other similarity between the articles is that they were created by two editors: Special:Contributions/Cherryblossom1982 & Special:Contributions/Dekkappai.

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because this is a bundled nomination better to give it another week to be sure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 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. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suisei Hoshii[edit]

Suisei Hoshii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did a Google search for the subject's name in quotes and for the word "Atlantis" - no results. I then did another one for subject and "Jorei" - no results, which is surprising given that he's supposed to be "the highest priest of the Atlantis Society", whatever that is. The only hits I got were when I searched as before with the word UFO, when two Japanese-language hits came up, and also I got a couple pages of results (nothing looking very compelling) when I searched 'photograph "Suisei Hoshii"' I think the subject MIGHT scrape notability based on their animation awards/film work, but it's tough to be sure. Perhaps The Polar Bear Story or the subject's production company are more notable than the actual subject himself? The page as it stands seems to be very promotional but seems JUST not quite totally promotional enough for a speedy, there is definitely content here to imply notability although it is hard for me to confirm. Perhaps Japanese language sources will be more helpful? However, as it stands, I find myself leaning fractionally more towards delete than keep, mainly due to the difficulty of finding sources actually ABOUT the subject. Mabalu (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The award matter is ludicrously hyped (see above). There's no evidence of notability as a photographer. He may for all I know be notable as a proponent of UFO-related and other woo; but if he is, then this article with its fawning coverage of his minor cultural achievements is not the place to start. -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym that eluded me on 6 March was of course WP:TNT. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the more one looks at this, the feebler it seems (which, in the context of UFO "research", perhaps isn't so surprising). Take a look at his list of TV appearances: "April 2011 Fukuoka FBS / Night Shuffle", reference is to a web page about the program in general, not this particular episode, no mention of this person; "January 2013 Fuji TV / Tokudane! (Voice only)", ditto; "October 2014 TV Asahi / Kanjani no Shiwake / Summit of occult and horror videos(関ジャニの仕分け∞)", link is to the ja:WP article about the program in general. ¶ And shall I say more about his photography? -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete layering unconvincing claims of notability on top of one another, as this article does, does not magically transform them into a convincing one. None of the sources are convincing as independent, reliable and significant, and thus fails [[WP:GNG]. None of the applicable SNG's appear to help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but until somebody actually wants to write an article about it, there's little point in keeping this almost empty shell in main space. The two first "keep" opinions make little sense and are disregarded. The article can be userfied or draftified or whatever the current fashion for such things may be.  Sandstein  14:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Donald Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Public image of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three months have passed since the previous AfD concluded that article should be kept and expanded, but it's still mostly empty, which is stunning for such a prominent public figure. Suggest to draftify the article until there is actual substance. — JFG talk 09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Redirect, or Userfy. The existence of this paltry, completely ineffectual and non-substantive double-talk 90-word article, with two (count 'em) citations, is an embarrassment. It needs to be quickly removed from article space. Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I supported keeping this the first time around, but seeing as no one's worked on it since, I'm neutral now. I'll go with whatever the consensus is. Ethanbas (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Merge I feel that this article has potential, but also that it may be closely related to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration -- BoredBored (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to draft space. The article is incomplete but has potential. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
lol @ your red talk page Ethanbas (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep – There is room for improvement, but the dynamics of the first 1—0—0 days have been breath-taking. Improvements will come about with time and tagging. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion's transclusion to the log was deliberatelyaccidentally sabotaged, and it did not appear properly during the past week. Therefore, this relist is not to be counted as a relist. There may be two more relists after this without comment from the relisting administrator, as per standard procedure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a clearly notable topic that is part of the well-defined structure of Category:Public image of American politicians. There are already reliable and verifiable sources, and President Trump -- for whatever he may, or may not, accomplish -- has a rather public image that will only have more and more material for expansion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Topic is very notable and significant, and will become even more so in the following years as with every U.S. president or other influential politicians. However, the article in its current state is poorly written and referenced, so while I don't think it should be deleted, a major expansion should be done. If not, maybe draftifying it or merging it with Donald Trump would be a better, immediate solution, but I'm not sure. κατάσταση 19:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the topic is eminently notable, which is why the abysmal lack of contents in this stub is very puzzling and disappointing, even three months after the first AfD noted the same situation. Meanwhile many minor articles related to Trump are created weekly, and the major ones still see hundreds of edits per day, so there is apparently no lack of editor motivation to write about him. This one should go to Draft space until some meaningful contents are added and structured. — JFG talk 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 07:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or WP:TNT. Notable topic, but this article doesn't even begin to scratch the surface - just the two citations, both from September 2016, for someone who's been a public figure for 20 years or so? I suspect that other possibly-interested editors wouldn't even know how to begin improving the article as it currently stands. (I haven't looked, but I have a suspicion that WP:FORK might be another issue.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no intention of or interest in doing so, but I reckon that I could write an article several times the length of this one, fully supported by WP:RS citations, on "Public image of Donald Trump in Scotland" alone. Narky Blert (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Topic is obviously notable. Userfication, drafitication, or deletion would make it harder to reach and be worked on. Tag it with {{incomplete}}. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Opinion polling on the Donald Trump administration since this obviously cannot be improved or expanded. Reyk YO! 14:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic worth whatsover. These low grade articles exemplify everything that's wrong at this project. Inlinetext (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the comparable page about Obama was created with much more substantial content and sourcing. This article shouldn't remain on the site unless it ca be edited to meet a similar standard. Porphyro (talk) 23:17, 16 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Sathyaraj[edit]

Divya Sathyaraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress - does not meet WP:NACTOR Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 8 March 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. Since this was a contentious AfD, let me expand on my rationale a little bit. The fact that the subject meets the threshold set by WP:PROF is not in dispute: additionally, several editors have examined the citation record in more detail, and argued that this person has had a significant impact in their field. The delete arguments center on the lack of reliably cited information, and on the promotional nature of the article. The promotional aspect is a legitimate concern, but it has been addressed during the AfD, largely thanks to the work of Jytdog. There is clearly enough information for a neutral stub, and since notability has been established, there remains no policy-based argument for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Montazeri[edit]

Ali Montazeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are written by the subject, and searching mostly gives sources for the unrelated person Hussein-Ali Montazeri. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows a h-index of 54 and a dozen highly cited papers, suggesting the subject passes WP:PROF#C1. Does need additional independent sources but these are likely to be available, in Persian if not in English. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- Prof#C1 must be there for a reason, and this article passes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete yes he has published, but there is a paucity of sources about him with which to craft an NPOV article. To folks making !votes that just cite "WP:Prof#C1 and the like, please actually read the guideline. None of those are automatic "passes" to N and there are no independent RS for the basic facts here. The current aritcle is just a puff piece advertising how great he is, created by a SPA (contribs). Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are 11466 sources about his work on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
by "GS" I assume you mean "Google scholar" and if so, what you wrote is meaningless and i am sorry to say incompetent.Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) That's uncalled for. Maybe you misunderstood what Xxanthippe was saying? Each of the papers that cite Montazeri are independent reliable sources that discuss his work, at least in a small way. Google Scholar (GS) gives us a good estimate of how many there are: 11466. Clearly then, there are plenty of sources for writing about Montazeri's work, even if we don't have many sources about him. Making this assessment is exactly why WP:PROF exists – and I can assure you that everybody in this discussion, being regulars at academic AfDs, has "actually read" the guideline. There is also the fact that it would be very unusual for an academic of Montazeri's standing not to have been the subject of biographical publications in his own country, although unfortunately nobody with the language skills to verify that is available. In other words, the current article may not be well written or well sourced, but sources are definitely available, so we can get there eventually. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Google scholar does not separately count citations. Also incompetent. Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and also Google_Scholar#Limitations_and_criticism. It includes lots of garbage and dupes and is game-able. The raw number is meaningless.Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The more conservative citation metrics reported by Scopus (5484, h-index 41) and Web of Science (1776, h-index 20) also show that the subject is a highly-cited researcher. In my mind there's no doubt that he has made a significant impact in his field, passing WP:PROF#C1, and you haven't really offered an argument to the contrary, only repeatedly attacked our competence. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at a more reasonable citation source. With regard to the putative lack of reason from my side, I said that there are insufficient sources about this person to create a well-sourced NPOV article about him. Which you have not addressed. Instead of actually working on the article you think is keep-able, you are wasting time making checkbox arguments that really don't mean anything, exactly per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I and others have mentioned multiple times above and below, WP:PROF does not require sources about a person. Sources about their work are sufficient to write a basic academic biography. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. I know too little about Iranian academia to find other aspects of notability for him (for instance I don't know whether his being editor-in-chief of IJPHSD should count for #C8), and searches are made more difficult by the similarity of names to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, but it seems likely that they also exist for those who can read Farsi. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I encourage folks who are !voting keep to spend some time and try to make an NPOV, well-sourced article about this person, instead of making abstract claims. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof gives a useful guide to evaluating the notability of academics/scholars/researchers. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and additionally no guideline including PROF offers an automatic green light. We need to be able to write an NPOV, well sourced encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog Your approach to Wikipedia editing can be seen on your user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, I describe it there: User:Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your views on Wikipedia editing are outside consensus. It might be better get your views agreed to on policy pages before attempting to impose them on individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I went over the article carefully and removed a boatload of unsourced promotional content like:
    • "Since his graduation from University of Glasgow, he has introduced the topic to the Iranian academic community and developed several internationally known instruments for measuring health and patient-reported outcome in Iran. He is the pioneer of this topic in Iran and is a well-recognized scientist internationally for his works in this field."
    • "Montazeri is among few investigators who for the first time proved that health-related quality of life is a prognostic factor for cancer survival."
    • "Montazeri made a substantial contribution to breast cancer prevention in Iran."
    • "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. He has published more than any investigator on breast cancer in Iran."
      • Let me just repeat that one again: "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. " (????)
    • "His bibliographic review of the literature on the quality of life in breast cancer patients from 1974 to 2007 is one of the most comprehensive existing piece of evidence that covers all aspects of breast cancer treatment and quality of life."
I looked for independent sources about him and found none - i used his linkedin profile and CV to be able to write something but these are both SPS. I did find that someone posted an identical article on another wiki, here. There appears to be a full-court promotional press going on for this guy.
The article as it stands is SPS + a description of a few of his papers. This is completely invalid; a pubmed search shows he has 308 papers. The papers that are described in the article now appear to be randomly chosen; shall we describe all 308? If not, what is the basis for choosing these? ack.
Again there are insufficient secondary sources about him with which to generate an NPOV, well-sourced article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but this is all FUD. Deletion is not cleanup: promotional content can be salvaged, which you have just shown yourself. 99% of academics don't have enough sources about them to pass the WP:GNG, because sadly we live in a society that prefers to spend its ink on chronicling the lives of "celebrities" of varying levels of achievement and not people who make an enduring, historically significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge. This is why we have WP:PROF as an alternative to the GNG: it allows us to assess whether a person is notable on the basis of what people have written about their work. In my experience, if someone passes WP:PROF it is always possible to write a decent article based on a combination of things like faculty profiles (which are not independent, but are widely accepted to be reliable sources for uncontroversial biographical details like where a person went to school) and citations to scholarly papers that cite/discuss their work. You may not like that WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, but that is very clearly the long-standing consensus, which isn't going to be overturned in a single AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on second thoughts; Jytdog's arguments are convincing, while a promotional campaign is a concern. Overall, this appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to recreation if can be done with reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say that a BLP with a GS h-index of 54 is "Too soon"? How big would it have to be to satisfy you that it was not "Too soon"? I note that promotional material has been removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
WP is not some directory where meeting some criteria gets you "in". (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) In other words, there is no such thing as automatic notability; there have to actually be independent reliable sources with which to build an actual article. We have to write articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the raw number of citations does not show influence on the profession, and neither does the h index. What shows an influence in the subject is highly cited papers, not the total, not the average. No amount of low quality or mediocre work gives influence,only really important work will do it. And even an isolated single highly cited paper does not necessarily show influential work, because the person might have been a junior author as a student. There is no mechanical way of judging citations. And as far as absolute numbers go, it's entirely field dependent. a paper with 50 citations is important in mathematics, and trivial in biomedicine. It's also chronology-dependent: a paper with 100 citations in biomedicine was very significant indeed 40 years ago, but considerably less significant now. The only way an argument based on them can be valid is if it represents an intelligent summary of the citation record.
there have, btw, been several studies of the relation of GS counts to WOS and Scopus, and they have all shown that in most fields, the GS figure is twice the others, but the pattern is otherwise the same. WOS remains the gold standard in fields where it applies, but GS is an adequate surrogate. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this particular case, examining the citation and the papers, he is the senior author of several important surveys which have been widely cited: 714, 515, 375, 299, 247, 263, 256, (25 papers with over 100 citations each) This is enough to show that he is an expert in his primary field, which is cancer epidemiology in Iran, and to a considerable extent the broader field of Iran epidemiology. The current version, thanks to the excellent editing of Jytdog, is no longer promotional -- it was a matter of removing adjectives and evaluative statements--the facts speak for themselves in showing notability , as they ought to. Thew point of WP:PROF is that secondary information about his work is unnecessary as long as the properly analyzed statistics show the notability . WP:PROF is not a supplement to the GNG, and not a matter of presumed notability -- it's explictly an alternative. True, among the many papers cited it we could find 3rd party evaluations of the work--this would add to the article, but it isn't necessary in order to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So interesting. This "article" is a piece of shit even after my efforts; all i did was polish a turd. There is nothing we can say about this person, as we have no sources about him to summarize. I do not understand the !keep votes, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[33] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I understand the arguments being made to !keep; I think they are the corrupt product of a walled garden. They are out of sync with how WP works, overall. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What walled garden is this? Who or what is corrupt? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
You aren't listening and I am not going to clutter this up further. Other folks will weigh in with time. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're selling yourself short, the current article is a perfectly acceptable start-class biography that can hopefully be expanded in the future with access to Farsi sources. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see public health as a "significant subdiscipline". PROF#C1 states "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Public health is not cancer research but rather the application of medicine to large populations. The titles (e.g., "Does knowledge of cancer diagnosis affect quality of life", "Cancer disclosure", "... communication with cancer patients") cited in the article do not suggest broad significance but do suggest a narrow slice (subsubdiscipline) of public health. The focus is neither epidemiology nor cancer mechanisms. When I read the article I thought the argument would be PROF#C8, but there are no claims here that the journals are major in their field. The person is significant in his field, but the field is too narrow. Glrx (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public health not a "significant subdiscipline"? I can find at least eleven Wikipedia articles that begin with the words"Public health". It's not a subdiscipline but a major discipline of crucial importance to populations throughout the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It's always difficult to judge by incoming links, because sometimes they really are put there by a promotional campaign. But in de-orphaning the article today I found that (despite the language barrier) we already had two references to his publications, from General Health Questionnaire and from Cancer (not a significant subdiscipline??!?). The GHQ one appears to have been added as part of the initial creation of the article and the Cancer one was added in 2011 (diff); neither editor who added them seems to have any connection to Montazeri nor to be anything other than a good-faith Wikipedia contributor. So I think Jytdog owes those two editors an apology. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that public health is a subdiscipline of medicine, but it does not seem to meet the notion of PROF#C1. The county public health doctor is the guy who imposes quarantines, makes sure the water supply is good, and shuts down the bad restaurants. The subject of this article seems to focus not on DGG's cancer epidemiology (looking for new cancer agents or genes), but rather questionaires, patient impact, bedside manner, and the merits of self-screening. Yes, those things need study, but the focus is narrow. That's why I quoted some of his paper titles.
The given links do not strengthen the case. Going to General Health Questionnaire (an article of two short paragraphs about a psychiatric evaluation questionaire) shows that he was involved in the Persian translation of the GHQ and its subsequent testing. None of the other cited authors are WL'd. Going to Cancer finds "Montazeri, A (December 2009). "Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008". Health Qual Life Outcomes. 7: 102. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-102. PMC 2805623. PMID 20030832." Neither the paper title nor the journal title instills confidence in WP:N. The reference is used to support the statement that patients who report higher quality of life tend to live longer. Sounds like an expected result. The guy is doing what scientists are supposed to do, but where is the evidence that he has had a significant impact on a significant subdiscipline of medicine? That impact should be more than translating questionnaires and checking the reliability of answers.
Currently, the article says he published some papers and uses citations to those papers as sources. That does not show the significance of the papers. Glrx (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the papers is indicated by the number of times they have been cited by other scientists. In this case, rather a lot. If a paper is insignificant, it doesn't get cited at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xxanthippe and GDD, this public health professional (and it's certainly a discipline) has published numerous widely-cited papers, which is certainly sufficient for the GNG. There is no reason for abuse to other editors, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 6 March 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) GSS (talk|c|em) 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pransli,gujarat[edit]

Pransli,gujarat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unsure what speedy deletion tag to put on this, so nominating for deletion. The article topic might be notable, but the content is not in English and is barely more information than the title provides. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. It's a village in Gujarat, a state in India.[34] Lack of translation is not generally considered a reason for nominating articles. Lourdes 10:05, 6 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aziz tarak[edit]

Aziz tarak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable journalist or businessman. A search for coverage in reliable sources failed to find anything of note. Note that neither of the companies he's involved in have Wikipedia articles either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the article as the business connection is removed , corrected some references, ** Megamindcorp (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need references from reliable, 3rd party sources. A reporters bio from the paper that employs him does not count for such. Nor does a founder bio on an organization he helped found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete No apparent notability. The organizations that he works for don't have Wikipedia articles and aren't obviously notable. But if he is a founder of a notable organization it will at least help towards notability. If somebody can show that the organizations are notable I might reconsider. Sjö (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--178.222.144.4 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — doesn't meet notability guidelines Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 22:17, 13 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Rodowsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:
James Rodowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns for nearly ten years not resolved. Seems to fail GNG, no guidelines for speedskaters in WP:ATHLETE, appears to only have had one tangential appearance, falling under WP:INVALIDBIO. No clear consensus on first afd. Oh yeah, there's fears of COI as well. South Nashua (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can confirm his bronzemedal from World Junior Short track speed skating championships from 2012 see this profile from International Skating Union (ISU) which is just added as an external link. The same information can also be found at the other profile-link which was added late in January 2017. Best regards Migrant (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Participation and even medaling in a Junior WC is not usually considered enough to merit passing WP:NATHLETE. Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:59, 14 March 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cable Internet providers[edit]

List of cable Internet providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be an encyclopedic list. Exists mostly as a product or service comparison site with a list of prices and free advertising for ISPs that would never pass the notability requirements Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATALOG & as original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Alas, it has a bunch of information in it and editors working on it; however, probably gets out of date real fast. Better idea would be a category, and by now (if not soon) effectively *all* cable providers also provide Internet access. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 9 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajil pious[edit]

Ajil pious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I went to the artists YouTube channel and I could not locate any videos/song, only a live stream that was "offline". Other sources located only included social media. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a vanity article with a lot of name-dropping, but no actual sources to back up any of the claims. The artist is signed to a label, but needs to release 2 albums under that label, which hasn't happened yet. Maybe someday, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appear to be a hoax. A copyvio of Lee Collins (musician) (see result). GSS (talk|c|em) 12:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our sourcing requirements for biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 March 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 Pacific_Broadcasting_Systems#Yes_FM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DXYR[edit]

DXYR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Using AfD rather than prod in case I've missed info as sources will tend not to be in English. No article in other language Wikipedias. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pacific_Broadcasting_Systems#Yes_FM. This is plainly verifiable as existing, but what I can't locate is proper clarification of whether the station originates at least some of its own local programming (one of the requirements in WP:NMEDIA for a radio station to pass notability), or whether it exists solely as a repeater of another station programmed in a different market. If it could be properly sourced as an originating station, then it would be eligible for a standalone article, but if it's just a rebroadcaster then it gets a redirect to its programming source and not a standalone article — and if we can't properly source which of those it is, then it's "rebroadcaster until proven otherwise", not "originating station until proven otherwise", because reliable sourcing is the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia at all times regardless of what unsourced evidence of notability is being claimed. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:18, 6 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W33 Dota[edit]

W33 Dota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a gamer on a team that has a Wikipedia article doesn't make one notable, and the sourcing is sub-par. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I added a couple of sources. Nothing worthwhile though. Fails GNG/SNG. Lourdes 08:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing major or noteworthy has occurred regarding this username/alias. SilverplateDelta (talk) 18:58, 6 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A-Space (community center)[edit]

A-Space (community center) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another invalid removal of a CSD tag, and here we are: a community center/bookstore with no claim of importance, no references, nothing. Its existence seems to have left few traces in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Straight forward GNG failure. South Nashua (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might find some interesting books here, but it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A political meeting space that's been operating since 1991, more than 25 years, and in particular an anarchist one in the prominent early American colonial city of Philadelphia, is of historic importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshallkirkpatrick (talk • contribs) 15:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure plenty of coffee shops could meet that description. That doesn't make them notable. South Nashua (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of you to help them out, but not one of those qualifies as a good source. Please see WP:RS. They are all event or directory listings or one to two sentence mentions. They are of no value in establishing notability, as none of them cover the subject in detail or significantly. (104.163.152.90 before router reset).198.58.158.1 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 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) — Yash talk stalk 03:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Halbert[edit]

Jason Halbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Dozens of sources include one line about him being music director for Kelly Clarkson, but I have not located any secondary sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw this article earlier and was going AfD, but I thought I would wait give to see what the article turned into. He is a real person with real credits. But he is no Mutt Lange. I thought maybe it could turn into a stub, but it's not looking like it is going to cut it. Kellymoat (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject has participated in several bands, but doesn't have any GNG coverage. Generally agree with Kellymoat. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the references fail to show enough in-depth coverage, for instance, the AllMusic reference is just a list of works connected to Halbert. The Hits Daily Double reference mentions Halbert only in passing. However, the Variety piece discusses the Gates Foundation video which in turn goes deeply into Halbert's career. And the Yamaha All Access piece is dedicated to Halbert. So there are at least two good sources here. Let's not get in the habit of removing information that would be useful to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should satisfy section 1 of WP:COMPOSER , credit for cowriting a notable composition, #4 has written a composition that has won in a major music competition (ASCAP Most Performed Pop Songs 2014) [4] Also satisfies section 2 and 3 of WP:MUSICBIO - Elpresidente57 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passses WP:COMPOSER and variety and yamaha sources for WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:COMPOSER for Catch My Breath, and Cry and page now has multiple secondary sources to meet criteria WP:BASICDirectorSandy (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – When I was checking SP:NPF earlier I saw this article and checked for sources, which there were. As well as meeting the general notability guideline, the article also satisfies section 1 of WP:COMPOSER. The Google News results put me off from originally nominating this article. J947 02:56, 11 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Dhumal[edit]

Ajay Dhumal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:BLP. Extensive editing (over the course of seven years) shows that the notability flags have been continually removed by amateur editors only to contain content that is unsourced and not of neutral POV Ajf773 (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a businessman without the level of notable source coverage to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no in-depth coverage to suggest they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:20, 13 March 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. Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sunway Group subsidiaries[edit]

List of Sunway Group subsidiaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article exists solely as a stand alone directory of non notable companies. Fails WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 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  13:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to Occupy Wall Street[edit]

Reactions to Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've never seen the point of "Reactions to" articles; they always strike me as falling foul of NOTNEWS, since, well, that's what they consist of--news items. That's certainly the case here: we have over 100k of comments on this protest, a huge amount of excessive information. If anything is really, really important it can be merged into the main article, but when that's all an article is, "Person X said Y", we're not really dealing with an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A valid and functional WP:SPINOUT and WP:SPINOFF of the Occupy Wall Street article (e.g. see Occupy Wall Street § Notable responses), which is presently at 188,600 bytes (WP:SIZERULE states that articles > 100 kb should "almost certainly should be divided"). However, and despite this, at the very least a merge would be more congruent with presenting objective and balanced coverage about the overall topic compared to outright deletion of the entire page. North America1000 05:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • NorthAmerica, you know that this argument is only valid if the content is reasonable. I know you are personally invested in this, having written or contributed to many of those articles, but we simply cannot have hundreds of kilobytes of reiterations of newspaper mentions. The "reactions" aren't notable, and amassing them doesn't make them any more so. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I was actually expecting to say delete, since I agree with the proposer's characterization of many such "reaction" articles. However, this particular article is not just one of those lists of unimportant stock "reactions" released by politicians or governments after some world news event, but a mass of useful and interesting content that is relevant to the subject. It would not be possible to merge the material into the subject's main article due to its size, so I think it is a legitimate fork and should be kept. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Tiptoe, so much of it is just grist for the mill of the talking head shows. So Newt Gingrich said something, and so did many others. What is the value of their opinion, uttered on the five o'clock talk show? I can't help but think that the entire Occupy coverage is inflated, and that the fish wrapped in those newspapers was eaten a long time ago. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I admit there is a lot of that in it (though given that the most important comments should be on the main article, having lesser significance material here is to be expected). I also don't see why there should be a separate criticism section given that the responses are already divided up into groups. But even if all the chatter stuff is cut I think there is still enough good content to make it difficult to be moved to the main article. And this article could be made more useful if it had more lengthy extracts from the opinions and commentaries, and went into things in more depth rather than just sound bites or generalities. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 7 March 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) — Yash talk stalk 05:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaj (street artist)[edit]

Vaj (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A single act of vandalism is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Have a look at WP:BLP1E; clearly relevant. I searched for quite a while (and have just relooked due to your comments), and cannot find any significant coverage in independent secondary sources which is not about this one event. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One has to meet all three of the following conditions for BLP1E deletion: Condition 1: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The sources cover her in the context of her being feminist artist, so condition one fails. They are not solely talking about her paint job on the statue, they talk about her position as a female artist, about the intervention, about feminism etc. Condition 2: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is false, as she is not likely to remain a low-profile individual, given that she is self-avowed a shi*-disturbing artist. BLP1E is meant for low profile individuals who are not typically in the public eye, and are not expected to be. Clause 3: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." It appears to be very well documented. It does not take much to see that this artist does not meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E. One could argue that she is close to meeting one or possibly two of them, but not all three, which is the requirement for WP:BLP1E. 104.163.152.90 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BLP1E 1) Do reliable sources only cover her in the context of the single event: Yes. Google Books has no results. Google news has only references to her following her painting of the Queen Vic statue; yes there's an interview with her regarding her motivations & reasoning for doing so, but it's still only because she's spray painted a statue. Google web search brings up the same results as the Google news search, her website & twitter, a single mention of a gallery show (which is promo), some blog comments on the statue, and not much else. Highbeam research archive has nothing relevant. I have access to a British newspaper archive, and there's nothing new there either. Finally I ran an academic search for kicks & giggles and found nothing there either. 2) Does she otherwise remain, and is likely to remain a low-profile individual: Debatable. But aside from this one event, there is no coverage whatsoever (aside from that one art show. I view it as WP:CRYSTAL; if she does something else notable, bring the article back, until then, it's a case of single event notability. 3) Is the event significant?: Spray painting a vagina onto a statue of Queen Victoria; you can argue about the reasoning behind it later, but I argue that the event itself is insignificant. It attracted some news coverage, but I wouldn't have thought that the coverage it does have established notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you're going to wander along behind me making snarky comments on every AfD I contribute to? Joy. Although I suppose it provides some encouragement to provide fuller explanations for my reasoning. Though dear, don't let that stop you from finding another hobby... --Jack Frost (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see you have now withdrawn your delete arguments on this artist as well. (formerly 104.163.152.90) 96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While most of the media coverage focuses on the one piece of artwork, there has been coverage of this artwork in English, French, Italian, Chinese, Ukrainian and Russian. Further, there has been subsequent discussion after the initial outrage related to the work about the roll of Vaj's work in a broader context, and included pictures of her other less well known works. She has also been the subject of a documentary that has been shown at a film festival. --LauraHale (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LauraHale and her incredible diff. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Laura's additions leave no futher doubt about this one.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Whilst I still hold concerns about the single event notability of this article's subject (as per my above comment), I cannot in good faith support deletion of the article in its current state. Phenomenal work by LauraHale. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - beautifully salvaged. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 01:22, 11 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Maggio[edit]

John Maggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines or political notability guidelines. See run-of-the-mill. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - local politician with moderate amount of run-of-the-mill, local coverage. Does not meet notability threshold.Glendoremus (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Onel5969 TT me 16:54, 13 March 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 In the Zone. The one delete !vote's concern about redirecting seems to have been addressed by Carbrera. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Touch of My Hand[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Touch of My Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this fails the WP:NSONGS section of WP:Notability (music), which states that songs must be significantly covered by credible secondary sources outside of album reviews. Commentary from Britney and/or her label doesn't count as that's just self-promotion. The few reliable third-party sources I've found talking about the song that aren't album reviews just give a brief paragraph at most. Simply not enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone. Carbrera (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to In the Zone per nominator's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to In the Zone per nominator's comments, I was about to do the same. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: – don't you mean "Redirect" instead of "Delete"? Carbrera (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
It may lead to its creation again. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: – I have it on my watchlist. I think a bunch of us probably do. If it was ever created again I would revert it to the redirect immediately. Carbrera (talk) 20:35, 12 March 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. Hut 8.5 22:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubrik[edit]

Rubrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Start up with no actual notability. The Forbes reference is just an inclusion in "Next Billion-dollar Startups", which, in our terms, amounts to "might be notable someday" (the actual capitalization at present seems to be $71 million). The other references are either PR or just notices about funding. None of this is reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:49, 10 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Abelli[edit]

Julien Abelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has only one source, which might not even qualify as an indepdent reliable source. There needs to be notable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:42, 13 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robin De Groot[edit]

Robin De Groot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Cites one "RS" which only mentions subject. No other sources could be found.

Does not meet WP:ENT: only one of 9 guest designers of Restaurant Makeover which is actually hosted by an additional 7 other people. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Television personalities, even on nationally televised reality shows, do not earn an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist — it's enough for an article if the person can actually be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not an automatic pass that exempts them from having to pass GNG. But even on a deep ProQuest search, I get just seven hits on his name of which all seven are glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him. All of which means we just don't have the sourcing required to make this keepable at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Meets neither WP:GNG (per searches) or WP:ENT. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 13 March 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 Lucid dream. redirects are, indeed, cheap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivid dream[edit]

Vivid dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Vivid dreams" does NOT mean any dream, that is remembered. Not even the source (Footnote 1) does assert this. "Vivid" means "lively". The whole stub is without any sense.-Mr. bobby (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Moreover, I suspect that the only reason this page exists, with its sources apparently in pop psychology, is to bolster up the contentious material at the second paragraph of Lucid dream § 20th century, which confounds two distinct phenomena: "a 'vivid' or 'lucid' dream". I'm considering removing that whole second paragraph from the section because of its "straw man" argument. yoyo (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a well defined medical term. Not even convinced redirecting to lucid dream would be justified. PriceDL (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well, let us delete it. i do not know the correct procedure. so someone has to acomplish it. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this nomination was missing the template, and was not properly listed for discussion. I have fixed both, but please consider the delayed listing when deciding on a close. Monty845 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete why redirect? the term "vivid dream" is not used at all in literature. the kind of dreams, in which a dreamer is aware of dreaming, is called a "lucid dream". Mr. bobby (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Redirects are cheap and a person who doesn't already know the literature and therefore the correct search term may plausibly search for this term. That's the purpose of redirects, after all: to guide a user to the correct term when they can't search for it out of ignorance.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the redirection of a non-existing term is nonsense. it is not used in any serious publication. the stub in discussion here was fun for a drunken guy. the lemma simply has to be deleted.Mr. bobby (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say it a different way: It doesn't need to be in "the literature" for it to be "real". The question is: Is a user, one who doesn't know the literature and therefore doesn't know correct terms plausibly likely to use "vivid" to search for their target? I think it is eminently likely. Who cares what "serious publications" say? This isn't a question of sourcing, it's a question of uninformed user behavior. Under the standard advocated immediately above, we'd have no redirects at all.
By the way, by both nominating this and then placing a bolded !vote in your reply above, you've effectively double-counted yourself. You will want to fix that to avoid confusion. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what "serious publications" say? you do not argue. you have no idea of psychological terms. and you produce an encyclopedia for a mental vacuum. end of discussion with you. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What, no admiration for my excellent grasp of sentence structure, capitalization and punctuation? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to lucid dream for the reasons given by Eggishorn. --pmj (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    as Heinrich Heine wrote: "no one is ever so crazy that he would not be able to find someone even crazier who understands him." Mr. bobby (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheer up, Mr. bobby. One day you'll find that special person. --pmj (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Many laypersons use the term "vivid dream" when they mean "lucid dream". Bearian (talk) 01:58, 14 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. Knight[edit]

G. Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a graffiti artist, with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NARTIST. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources, except for a single news article where the citation links to a reprint on the subject's own website rather than to the originating publication -- thus making it impossible for us to properly verify whether said publication is a real reliable media outlet or a non-notable blog. And even if it is a real reliable media outlet, it still takes more than just one legitimate reliable source to get a person over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly reference him over GNG, but an artist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because blogs and art auction sales databases nominally verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as you can tell by my username I live in the city in question, which is indeed awash in graffiti. I've never heard of the article subject and more importantly, Google news reveals no articles about him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no critical attention for the subject's work. As far as I can tell, nobody has written about his work. One of the sources even helpfully points out that: "His Instagram page is the only online site where a significant quantity of his street work can be viewed". Mduvekot (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mduvekot. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent sources unavailable to establish notability.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total lack of coverage in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:30, 13 March 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 Daily Howler[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Missing log taken into account, but the consensus is firmly against any administrative action being required. Thanks to User:Monty845 for catching this)(non-admin closure) — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Howler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There don't seem to be any independent sources attesting to this website's notability-at least, none included in the Wikipedia article itself. Almost every single link leads back to the website being described. Of the 3 that don't, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the final one is from an article published a decade ago. This also reads like a press release for the website. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I fixed the dead link, it is a sqib in the Columbia Journalism Review, attesting to The Daily Howler's place in the world of online journalism media criticism. M.boli (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. It seems like that's from an article that's not accessible online-outside of the Wayback Machine. Is there any relevant coverage of this website from within the past decade that can be cited, re: notability? I'm having trouble finding any recent, non-blog based coverage of TDH which could attest to its notability.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can see your point! It seems like Daily Howler was notable 10 years ago, but much less so now. Gobonobo (talk · contribs) added two references, which talk about what DH did in the past. Doing a little searching (and using search options to exclude self-referencing) comes up with 6,000 to 7,000 references to DH. Most are from blogs, they are largely (but not entirely) not recent. I still vote for keep, it seems to me that the DH has a place in political blog history and is still relevant. But absent that historical context, if it were a fresh creation, I could agree it isn't Wikipedia-worthy. M.boli (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This nomination was missing its template and was not properly listed. I have fixed both, but please consider the time of listing when closing. Monty845 00:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this was a pretty significant blog for at least a decade starting with its creation. Searching "dailyhowlder.com" on google books, scholar, etc. seems to give different results thank "Daily Howler", in case you want to read more about it. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NTEMP applies. The fact that an online news source that seems to have stopped major reporting in 2011 is not generating current coverage is entirely unsurprising. If there is coverage from when it was making an impact, the article passes WP:GNG and should stay. Significant independent coverage exists: At least two books (What Liberal Media?: The Truth about Bias and the News[36] and Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy: Terrorism, War, and Election Battles[37] credit this site with enabling a better analysis of media coverage of Al Gore. Both books are scholarly works by established media studies professors. An additional GScholar 43 results further indicate lasting impact in the scholarly study of media in the early Aughts, including journals as significant as Columbia Journalism Review. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Here are some non-trivial reviews:
Full-Court Press.
Alterman, Eric
Nation, Nov 22, 1999; Vol. 269, No. 17, p. 10
The article focuses on the success of Bob Somerby, employee of Washington Press Corps.... more
A case of stacking the deck.
Leo, John
U.S. News & World Report, Jul 28, 2003; Vol. 135, No. 3, p. 44
Focuses on Internet commentator, Bob Somerby, and his Daily Howler Web site, in light ... more
The Howler's Quiet Moment: Bob Somerby, Media Scourge, Considers His Next Crusade.
Twomey, Steve
Columbia Journalism Review, Jan 01, 2005; Vol. 43, No. 5, p. 17-19
This article features Bob Somerby, who started digital-media watching through his Web ... more
Clearly notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 10 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oz Yilmaz (director)[edit]

Oz Yilmaz (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of a writer and film director with no strong claim to passing our notability standards for either endeavour. The only real indication of notability here is that he and his work exist, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources with the exception of a short blurb in a magazine that isn't substantive enough to carry notability all by itself as the article's only independent and reliable source. As always, Wikipedia is not a free alternative to LinkedIn -- he could be eligible to have an article if one could be properly sourced to media coverage, but he's not automatically entitled to have one just because primary sources nominally confirm that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

bearcat I understand what you are saying. I will look immediately for a properly sourced media interview to show eligibility for surpassing the notability standards as opposed to simply existing.


bearcat I have added citations for interviews and articles done on Oz Yilmaz and his works. These sources include

-cbc radio -LeDevoir Magainze (independent reliable publishing from Montreal) -The Concordian (University Publishing, also independant) -ISO1200, a photography magazine -gaypers.com , journal website centered on the LGBT community - fuges.com

These sources objectively prove that Oz Yilmaz is a notable figure in the Montreal community as these are very notable, reliable, independent sources. I hope this hereby dismisses any claims questioning Oz Yilmaz's notability.



Hello, Mduvekot I dream of horses bearcat


This page is currently under threat of deletion because the page lacked independent, credible citing to prove Oz Yilmaz is a notable figure. Since the threat of deletion, I have added citations to articles and/or interviews with Oz Yilmaz from credited papers and news outlets such as CBC radio/ LeDevoir Magazine/ The Concordian/ Iso1200 magazine/ gaypers.com and fugures.com/

These sources show without question that Oz Yilmaz is a notable and important figure in the Montreal community which should allow for the threat for deletion to cease. I would ask that the threat be removed as I have done my part in following all the guidelines and cooperated in adding all missing information.


Thank you


Mduvekot I dream of horses Bearcat I would appreciate the courtesy of a response and confirmation whether the new citations I have provided satisfy the needs to remove the threat of deletion. Thank you.

Tranquilize your horses, dude. You don't need to keep posting over and over again to request an instant response to your question — Wikipedia is a volunteer project, not a paid job, so people can only read and respond to your comments when they're here to read and respond to them, and repeating your request two or three times isn't going to make anything happen any faster than just posting it once and being patient.
At any rate, no, the new "sources" you've added are not improving the case. Notability cannot be staked on student newspapers, so The Concordian doesn't assist anything. Interviews with the subject, such as the Radio Canada International link, don't aid notability, because they represent the subject talking about himself rather than third parties writing or talking about him — they can be used for supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been cleared by stronger sources, but they cannot count toward the basic question of whether GNG has been cleared in the first place. Gaypers and ISO1200 are blogs, not reliable sources. Le Devoir helps a little bit, but not much, because it doesn't say anything about him that would constitute a WP:CREATIVE pass.
So, at this point, all we've got here for sourcing that counts toward GNG is Fugues and Le Devoir, and even Fugues is still a blurb. If he'd won a Canadian Screen Award or an Oscar, thus passing CREATIVE on the basis of having won a major award for his work, then just one or two valid sources would be enough to start the article with — but if he doesn't actually meet any specific "must-include" criterion, and instead you're going for "he's notable just because media coverage about him exists", then it takes more media coverage about him than just one article in Le Devoir and a blurb in Fugues. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although he is a published author, I can't find enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and he certainly doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 16:33, 13 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Calon[edit]

Jamie Calon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. WP:BLP of an inventor and businessman, which is (a) written more like a prosified résumé than an encyclopedia article, and (b) minimally sourced to one primary source directory of patent applications and two glancing namechecks of his existence in articles which aren't about him. As always, businessmen and inventors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they can be nominally verified as existing -- he'd be eligible for one if he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing here is helping him get there. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 11 March 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. sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH too badly to use them to show notability ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outright Libertarians[edit]

Outright Libertarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:ORGDEPTH. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – More sources can be found here and even more here. That is over 2,100 book sources and an extra 51 for news! J947 02:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of those book references seem to be referring to lower-case outright libertarians — not the proper noun, but the adjective followed by the common noun. Others are inclusions in lists. The news articles are mainly mentions, like "Baker is... [among other things] ...the secretary of the National Outright Libertarians Organization" and even some of those are about local politics, which doesn't provide much notability. There doesn't seem to be depth of coverage, even with the recent election. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's still enough for me to strongly keep. J947 17:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable article about a legit org. The Advocate, vice.com and Nashville refs are enough to establish notability. Station1 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per snowball clause . Passes all inclusion guidelines. DrStrauss talk 12:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of those "sources" are not actually about this organisation. Those that are about this organisation are purely trivial mentions. Coverage of an organisation opening a Nashville chapter is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. See WP:ORGDEPTH which states "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements" AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it gets lots of mentions, they are not in-depth at all. The organization exists, true, but does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 16:17, 13 March 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. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Overview_of_the_trial
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#Overview_of_the_trial
  4. ^ https://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2014/most_peformed_songs
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_6&oldid=1142618041"