Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 February 20 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle & Hawk

[edit]
Eagle & Hawk (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)

Musical group with no evidence of any notability. Article has been around since 2011 and has been tagged as requiring sources but none have appeared. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 20 February 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) 05:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Schwartz

[edit]
Judy Schwartz (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 with a lengthy rationale on the article's talk page which amounts to nothing more than an WP:OSE argument. Article was declined at AfC, then was simply moved to mainspace. Notability is not inherited, and while this person is accomplished, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 TT me 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the above, this article was declined at AfC on Jan 15th but resubmitted for review after discussion with editor who recommended adding archived citation. Due to backlog, was advised of option to recreate the updated draft as an article. Thus it is not accurate that the article was simply declined at AfC and then just moved to mainspace.

There is clearly an era bias occurring when it comes to the acceptance or deletion of articles related to Nassau County government officials. All 5 currently serving executives in Nassau County (the County Executive, Chief Deputy County Executive, District Attorney, Comptroller and County Clerk) each have independent articles in Wikipedia - however a predecessor who remains the highest woman to ever hold office in said government is being labeled non-notable enough for an article? That is not a flimsy WP:OSE argument.

“When used correctly, these [WP:OSE] comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content it provides or excludes.”

Also if you are not familiar with Nassau County, it has a population larger than 10 individual U.S. states and is the wealthiest county per income in New York State. It is such a powerhouse of a government that NYS senators and assemblymen willingly resign their posts when given opportunity to serve in a Nassau County executive position. As example the current Chief Deputy County Executive, Rob Walker resigned his position as a New York State Assemblyman to take the current promotion. So it is totally inaccurate for John Pack Lambert to describe Judy Schwartz, Nassau County's former Chief Deputy County Executive as "a non-notable local politician," particularly when at the time she held the highest office of any female in Long Island politics. Meanwhile here is just a short list of existing articles published on other female Nassau County politicians of arguably less notability than Judy Schwartz: Maureen O'Connell, Judith Jacobs, Diane Yatauro

Btheory1978 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Many of the claims made in the article are unsubstantiated, for example, none of the references include the claim that Schwartz is the "highest ranking-female in local Long Island politics", or "the highest-ranking woman in the Nassau County Government", or her winning an oral award or, well almost every claim in the article is unsourced. The first sources is not available online, but the second and third sources have nothing to do with Schwartz. The third source does validate that Schwartz was Gulotta's deputy, but she is given a single trivial mention in the article. The last reference is about Brewington, but does not appear to mention Schwartz at all. Onel5969 TT me 01:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most claims are not unsourced. Example, I keep referring to Wikipedia's article on Nassau County, New York#Law and government which establishes the hierarchy of government officials in Nassau County. The highest office is County Executive, a position that has only been served by men (as listed). The 2nd highest office is Chief Deputy County Executive which does establish Judy Schwartz as the highest ranking female official to have served in that government (as listed). Likewise, Long Island is comprised of only 2 counties: Nassau and Suffolk. Suffolk County, New York is also headed by a County Executive, and also no woman has ever served in that position. Suffolk has a slightly different political hierarchy than Nassau and so the head of their legislative branch is considered the 2nd highest serving official. Again no female has served in that role either. So technically, Judy Schwartz still remains the highest ranking woman to have ever served in local Long Island politics and that is information directly deducible from Wikipedia.

Also, a major obstacle I have encountered in trying to substantiate this article with more citations is that the Long Island Press does not have a functioning archive search engine: http://archive.longislandpress.com/

And currently the furthest back I can search on their homepage is 2013. To complicate the matter that publication was bought out to new ownership in 2003 so even trying to get hard copies of articles from before 2003 is not possible. Given that there are only 2 major Long Island newspapers, Long Island Press and Newsday, this is a serious disadvantage to any article on Long Island persons or politicians prior to 2013, let alone prior to 2003. Regarding Newsday, like most publications it was still only available in print in the 1990's and early 2000's. Therefore, I have to source their archives, even if it's not information that is free of cost to access online. Nonetheless it is a legitimate citation source according to Wikipedia so really shouldn't need to be called into question. Indeed, as I mentioned previously there is an evident era bias and I think sometimes editors may forget, or are too young to remember, that the internet only started to become a major source of news & information in the early 2000's (Wikipedia wasn't even around until 2001).

Let me offer a very clear example. There is an individual Wikipedia article on the current Comptroller of Nassau County, George Maragos. Among his predecessors spanning back to 1913, only 2 have individual Wikipedia articles and that is because they were elected US Congressmen so instantly fit WP: Politician. Thus, given an independent article was published on George Marago, it implies that he is the most notable comptroller to ever hold office in Nassau County as he did not need to be elected to higher office in order to be deemed notable enough for an individual Wikipedia article. Or is it more likely that since he was elected in 2009, every article or mention of his name and accomplishments were directly posted to the web, making citations widely and instantly accessible - a privilege not available to his predecessors. So in connecting back to the current debate, if someone is turning to Wikipedia with an interest in Long Island politics, is George Maragos actually more notable than the highest-ranking woman to have served in the respective government and nominal region of 3 million citizens (that's more populous than 30 individual U.S. states). So I don't believe this article should be deleted. But I do appreciate your scrutiny Onel5969 since that is how articles improve so I'll take heed of additions/ adjustments I can make according to your suggestions.

Btheory1978 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody reading what I wrote? As deducible from Wikipedia this subject is the highest woman to ever serve in local Long Island politics. I don't know how anybody can dispute... that is notable. I have explained the obstacle involved due to the fact that Long Island Press does not have an archive search engine and Newsday only has limited archive searches from before 2005. Given that those are the 2 major citation sources used to substantiate articles that HAVE been published on current Long Island persons and politicians, I am concerned about the era bias occurring wherein notable figures from Long Island prior to 2003-2005 are not getting due articles published. It is clear on the surface that this subject is more notable than most current politicians in Long Island who do have individual Wikipedia articles. In fact, most others do not have New York Times citations since that is a national publication... however, this subject does (even in passing it denotes prominence for any local politician to be referenced in NYT).

So can there please be a discussion here, because this is about more than this individual subject... it's about how Wikipedia handles the evident slant developing towards current subjects who don't actually demonstrate greater notability than their forbearers... they simply live at a time when it is easier to document. I don't think Wikipedia should be excluding subjects because they accomplished at a time when web technology wasn't developed or being utilized as a source of verification or bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btheory1978 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. I looked at the citations with live links. (1) "DAT-Schaub grows significantly in the U.S." - no mention of Judy Schwartz. (2) "Danish Crown subsidiary principal in casings co." - no mention of Judy Schwartz. (3) "Touro Law" - deep down, there's a mention of Judy Schwartz '93, among literally hundreds of other people, as having donated $100-$249 [sic] to her alma mater. (4) Power Play Over Nassau Coliseum "Mr. Gulotta, who has had frosty relations with the Islanders' current owners and SMG, sent his deputy, Judy Schwartz, to read a statement, which featured a vague promise of an agreement on an arena deal. She offered no details and was unable to answer any questions." (5) "A Civil Tenor for Civil Rights" - no mention of Judy Schwartz. (6) Planned Parenthood (after linking through) - one of the 30 people on the Board of Directors; one of the 23 who have no responsible position of any kind. Give - me - a - break! I cannot see anything which gets this article anywhere near WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 28 February 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) 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Blais

[edit]
Mimi Blais (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 re: WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable sources separate from subject

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

254 (number)

[edit]
254 (number) (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. This page should be deleted because there is no reason for a page to be created that says 254 is the number following 253 and preceding 255, and a semiprime. This article does not add any real value to Wikipedia or Wikimedia as a whole and should not be covered as it is not a notable number. WikiProject Numbers says it is covering the following whole numbers; "Integers: Continuous from −1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1012, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property.." Fails WP:Notability (numbers); does not have at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties,have obvious cultural significance (e.g., as a lucky or unlucky number), and is not listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number" webpage.

Only number pages that can have a good amount of meaningful content on them should be created, and this fails all three tests for WP:Notability (numbers). TheGoldenParadox (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 20 February 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) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siftery

[edit]
Siftery (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 company, fails WP:CORP. Insufficient coverage to pass the notability requirements. Bilby (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources in the article do not establish notability, and my own searches turn up press releases and blogs mostly. Reporting is on them getting financing which is regular business news. The company fairly new so no objection to recreation if they become notable in the future but they don't pass the notability bar at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 23 February 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 Dean Armstrong. Mz7 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong Acting Studios

[edit]
Armstrong Acting Studios (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:NCORP and WP:PROMO. The source provided is misleading. One would think the reference would discuss the studio and some of its notable alumni in more detail, when in reality the source is simply a bio article for one of the notable alumni, Nina Dobrev. Without additional reliable sources I think this fails WP:GNG and should be removed. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:57, 19 February 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) 03:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Broad

[edit]
Damien Broad (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:NSPORTS or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 25 February 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) 03:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Broad

[edit]
Dominic Broad (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:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:55, 25 February 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) 04:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jatomi Fitness

[edit]
Jatomi Fitness (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I don't see anything on GNews, at least not enough to pass cited policies. Mostly in passing. I found one article in Polish ([1]) about the company being accused of scaming its customers with extra fees, but it is on a minor portal. Do note this was AfDed before under different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure Jatomi Fitness; closed as no consensus due to 1 keep vote, but the sources cited are about the founder (first one, second one is already dead). This is WP:CORPSPAM. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:40, 19 February 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) 04:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Rose (Rock Band)

[edit]
Wild Rose (Rock Band) (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 appear to meet WP:BAND. The references are all unremarkable blogs and the "chart" references are for some website called Melodic Net and not Billboard. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had no idea about the conflicts of interest. I had the suggestion to make this wiki page by a friendly band W.E.T., which in fact has no citation at all and they didn't make the billboard either, but the Swedish chart. I apologize if I have caused any inconvenience. (author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarisPatsos (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HarisPatsos:That's okay. Just keep in mind the policy on autobiographies and conflicts of interest. MereTechnicality ⚙ 21:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started deletion procedures for WET. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Kellymoat (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am typically a delete voter because not everything in life is actually notable. And while I am still voting delete, I think the subject of the article meets the very poor criteria required to be kept. Just because we've never heard of them, doesn't mean that others haven't. They have a albums. They have press coverage. Sometimes I think all it takes is for a press agent to put out some blurbs, and you qualify for a page. But that is something to be discussed in a different forum. Kellymoat (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • "author has COI (seems to be member of band) and has only used account for promotional purposes; in addition to that, I'm questioning the reliability of some of the sources provided. @MereTechnicality" ???

Hi, Chris here CEO of C.S.Management & Promotions, General Manager of the band and Manager of Lions Pride Music music label (Denmark). First of all sources provided are completely reliable. 1) The bands second album "Dangerous" (AOR Heaven records) hit the number 1 in import sales in the whole Japan in June 2013 (Burrn! Magazine Japan) while Bon Jovi's - What About Now (Island records) album was placed on number 3 on sales and Virtue - We stand to fight (No remorse label) on number 2! (Source Proof from June's 2013 Burrn! Magazine Japan photo [1], [2]. 2) The band also features a song in the American horror movie which has been released last year called "The Barn" playing in theaters right now in USA [3], Trailer Picture Proof [4], Official youtube trailer proof min. 1.45 [5] 3) The bands page has also been Verified as unique page by facebook [6] . 4) Their track "Summer Girl" from their latest album "4" was also released in a compilation CD of "Fireworks Magazine" [7] and sold 4000 magazine & CD copies worldwide.

Band member didn't put the band here for promotion as long as if you google the bands name you'll find it all over the internet, he just wants his band to be mentioned in your site as long as many other bands being mentioned here, except Wild Rose for no particular reason of your side. Please reconsider your decision while every proof stated is REAL, and there is no promotional purpuse used.

Thank you very much, Best regards, Chris Siloma Zanidis CEO C.S.Management & Promotions Wild Rose General Manager Lions Pride Music Manager 


/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Siloma Zanidis (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You also have a conflict of interest. Kellymoat (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment" Well if this article doesn't belong to wikipedia then probably [8], [9] , [10] all these bands and many many more must be deleted as well. I really dunno why I'm an ureliable person while I'm giving to you all proofs about the band while others don't and you still have their bands here. Sorry about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Siloma Zanidis (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hate when people say "but what about these articles". This isn't grade school. There is no "but everyone else is doing it." We aren't grading on a curve. The only thing that matters is the article we are currently discussing. And that article deserves a big fat no. Kellymoat (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References from Sockpuppet's comments
  1. ^ https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10250050_10152775015656649_9023725758747021515_n.jpg?oh=e051b542ac9c3229c114678f91324408&oe=5935E1FA
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrn!
  3. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3390550
  4. ^ https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t35.0-12/16931185_1605196266162516_849657849_o.jpg?oh=874b6c0922a8e497aa11545cdf27522c&oe=58AF07B2
  5. ^ youtube.com/watch?v=3KRqrCd54gs
  6. ^ facebook.com/WildRoseTheBand
  7. ^ http://www.rocktopia.co.uk/index.php?option=com_magazine&Itemid=142
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_(band)
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierpaolo_Monti
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shining_Line
Thank you for that barely comprehensible response. Treating these discussions like they're some sort of personal thing is silly - stick to policy-based arguments like everyone else is doing, if you want to be taken seriously. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rarely comprehensible response as well. Treating this article like you don't treat other ones. And as everyone can see; it's a very personal thing, having others here and deleting this article and @Kellymoat responding back to me about childish behaviours?. If you want to be right then be right and accept all bands who achieved a lot with real proofs and leave your beliefs out of it or search them! or have NONE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Siloma Zanidis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't helping you. Take a step back. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 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) Magnolia677 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Kings

[edit]
Lost Kings (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. Appear to have two songs that have charted on an emerging artist chart. Almost no secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doesn't fail any of those criteria the nominator mentioned. The musician has some charted songs [2] on Billboard Dance/Electronic chart (which is an acceptable chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS) and reliable sources [3][4]. - TheMagnificentist 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although, from what I can gather, this really should be kept to stub level. A full article is too much. Kellymoat (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep two charted singles and notable collaborations. Agree with Kelly that it should be kept at stub level at the moment. Karst (talk) 13:07, 20 February 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. WP:G3 NeilN talk to me 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DZRH 93.5 FM

[edit]
DZRH 93.5 FM (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 coverage in reliable sources. All I could find was this facebook profile, and I cannot help but wonder if it was created by this article's creator, so this may be a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 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) 04:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahtabur Rahman Nasir

[edit]
Mahtabur Rahman Nasir (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 search finds not enough RS to construct a minimally accurate BLP. Fails GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:30, 19 February 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) 04:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gray McDonnell

[edit]
Andrew Gray McDonnell (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 thorough search for RS fails to find anything significant. Article fails NACTOR and GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable films. He has had one role, that is maybe border-line significant, in a film that has not even been released yet. His other roles are either not significant or not in notable works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 20 February 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. If there's worthwhile info out there to add to Wikipedia, then there's always WP:UNDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gurickk g Maan

[edit]
Gurickk g Maan (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. Non-noteable music director. Looking through the sources the only claim of significance is a song that came out less than three weeks ago. WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:32, 19 February 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) 04:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Baukol

[edit]
Andy Baukol (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)

Has some notability issues. Ethanbas (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. If there's not enough notability for an entry, why would you create it in the first place? Are you going to delete other entries that might be AFD, like Dysejaculation or Ariel Merari? Personally, I would never create a page that I didn't think deserved inclusion and I would immediately work it up that level. Bangabandhu (talk)
I thought Andy Baukol was notable, and I think now I was probably wrong. I don't support the deletion of those articles. Ethanbas (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For which of those articles did you receive compensation? Are you paid differently to create than to add to an entry? Bangabandhu (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can find links on my user page which show which articles I create are paid. None of these biographies were paid for. Ethanbas (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being acting Deputy Secretary of the Treasury briefly (assuming the full-time position is filled soon) isn't terribly notable and I haven't been able to find any coverage beyond brief mentions. It was hard enough finding a source to confirm his role. Mortee (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the creator themselves admits in a very honest nom, this individual fails notability guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why did User:Ethanbas remove the PROD, and, within the same minute, nominate the article for deletion? There seems to be some contradiction in his behavior that is yet to be explained. Riceissa (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The PROD was for lack of citations. After citations were added, I removed the now irrelevant PROD, and started this AfD because I wanted there to be a discussion on whether the low notability is enough to keep the article or not. Ethanbas (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethanbas acted correctly. {{BLP prod}} is about lack of sourcing, so the addition of even just one source to the article forces the prod to end regardless of what other content issues may still exist — so it's perfectly appropriate to take it to AFD if the core notability issue is still in question. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly in theory we don't observe a notability distinction between temporary "interim" or "acting" holders of a political office and permanent duly elected or appointed ones — if we can source them properly, then we don't care if they held the role for twenty years or three weeks. But all we have for sourcing here is one set of primary source meeting minutes and two glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and that's just not good enough. For the record, I have also occasionally nominated my own prior work for deletion, usually because it was stuff which I created a decade ago under our old sourcing and notability rules, but which couldn't really be repaired to meet the current standards anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 February 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 title may be redirected at editorial discretion. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Champniss

[edit]
Ben Champniss (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)

Clearly fails WP:ENT. The only roles he has had are extras in a few films and on one soap opera. WP:ENT states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I wouldn't call a few non-speaking parts in a film "significant roles". I have searched on Google and am unable to find any roles that would make him notable. I suggest either deleting or redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2014)#Shrimpy. 5 albert square (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:31, 19 February 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 Withdrawn per below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art pop (disambiguation)

[edit]
Art pop (disambiguation) (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)

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. WP:TWODABS states If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. There are only two topics of this title are Art pop and Art Pop, and the former is the primary topic. Lady Gaga's album Artpop is a separate entity because that doesn't have a space in between the words "art" and "pop", and therefore doesn't truly count as a third entry for the title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our agreed guidelines on combining similar terms on dab pages make clear that:
"A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar [as opposed to nitpickingly identical] terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include [..] Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms, or compound words. For example, the terms Eaglenest, Eagle Nest, Eagle's Nest and Eagle Nests all appear at Eagle's Nest"
Regardless of your personal opinion- which you're entitled to- our agreed guidelines above make quite clear that "Artpop" and "Art pop" do not warrant treatment as separate names for disambiguation purposes. There are therefore three- and not two- entries to be disambiguated, which was the basis for the creation of the page in the first place.
Note; I am the creator of the dab page in question. Ubcule (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; hadn't noticed that part of WP:DAB. In that case, I withdraw this AFD. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:15, 20 February 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 deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Ransack

[edit]
The Ransack (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 establish notability, fails WP:NMOVIE. MereTechnicality ⚙ 17:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the user who created the article has a COI (username is Romanbrar, studio that is directing movie is apparently owned by Roman Brar Singh). MereTechnicality ⚙ 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Totally unremarkable future film that is unsourced (nor can I find anything outside of the article) and appears as though the script hasn't even been written yet. The film will tell a story of 4 friends with different cultures and take them to an adventure that will change their lives." Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:30, 22 February 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 deleted per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hadi Fayyadh Bin Abdul Razak

[edit]
Muhammad Hadi Fayyadh Bin Abdul Razak (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD under Muhammad Hadi Fayyadh Abdul Razak. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid.

Please note this article may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G5 as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the article's creator. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 20 February 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. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chimpui episodes

[edit]
List of Chimpui episodes (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 a summary only description of works violating WP:IINFO. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 17:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of episode lists with only the titles and a summary, why is this one different?--Shinnosukeandme (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPLOT does not apply here since the article is supporting Chimpui which would need notability to stay around. MOS:TVPLOT would apply though. And adding more than saying it's a list of episodes would help give it context and notability. Was it broken into seasons or was it just one long season? How was it determined how long it would run? At some point it was allowed to continue on and on, past the usual 12-13 or 24-26 episodes of a "season" especially with 114 episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Concise plot summaries of episodes are one part of what makes up good encyclopedic coverage of a television series. The brief plot summaries currently included in the list seem like appropriate content that we would want to retain. WP:NOTPLOT is an explanation of why the article is currently of poor quality and of how it needs to be improved (i.e., it needs more non-plot content added), but it is a reason to expand the article, and not a reason to delete it. Calathan (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per other editors DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:43, 26 February 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) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natu Visinia

[edit]
Natu Visinia (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 as either a boxer, mixed martial artist or recording artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:36, 19 February 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. Subject notability eventually demonstrated, closure at nominator's behest. (non-admin closure) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 10:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akatombo

[edit]
Akatombo (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)

dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Does not say enough to indicate what is notable or characteristic about the song. No references. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanbas maybe you as creator could do that yourself rather than ordering us to do it for you. The volunteers are not here to complete your lazy creations and unsourced stubs. Especially as you are paid for a lot of what you do here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paid for this article, or any of the work I've done in the past few months. And I'm not ordering anyone to work on the article. And it's not a lazy creation, and it's not an unsourced stub. Ethanbas (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Japanese article (per Google Translate) suggests this is very popular in Japan. I can't do anything with the Japanese sources but have added two English language sources that I dug out. Mortee (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Popular' is not automatically notable. A raft of other language sources may be as unsuitable as the regular barrel-scraping for fleeting mentions we get her on en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, and I can't evaluate the value of the sources directly, but between them and the English-language mentions I've seen, I'm convinced this is a worthwhile topic Mortee (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This isn't the Japanese Wikipedia and having an article in another language Wikipedia is not a criterion for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. The first source added, Cultural History Of Postwar Japan, is a brief mention (one sentence) in a 186 page book. The second source is a self-published website, http://dragonflyandjapaneseculture.weebly.com/, not a reliable source. The article still fails GNG: it needs significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources exists in Japanese. Ethanbas (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean to say that having an article on another language Wikipedia warranted inclusion - that way nothing covered in two languages would ever be deleted. I meant that article seemed detailed and to have several references, which suggested our own article could be improved. That fits with WP:BEFORE B6 Mortee (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should add two things: 1) I didn't say that the sources I'd added so far established notability in themselves; I think they together with the quality of the Japanese article do that. 2) The first reference you mentioned isn't one sentence. It's two sentences, including the claim that it's a "popular children's song", followed by some of the music (in musical notation) followed by credits for the lyrics and tune. Not exactly a dedicated thesis but not quite as trivial as your summary might suggest. Mortee (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually a third thing, with apologies for the spam. I said 'two sources' because that's what I'd added when I added the comment, but the second wasn't the Weebly site, it was a book about Chinese film. That's also a brief mention where the song is not the main theme, granted. I just wanted to make this clear. Mortee (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative searches:
Japanese song title and composer: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song title and composer: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt. song title and composer: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt. song title and composer: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alt. song title and composer: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References

  1. ^ Cultura japonesa, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba (in Portuguese). Hitz-Berba Editores Associados. 1994. p. 218. Destacamos o nome de Kosaku Yamada, um dos primeiros compositores genuínos. Estudou na ... Compôs várias óperas e músicas instrumentais, mas as mais conhecidas são canções infantis como Akatombo, Machiboke etc. As músicas ... [We highlight the name of Kosaku Yamada, one of the first genuine composers. He studied at ... He composed several operas and instrumental music, but best known are his children's songs as Akatombo, Machiboke etc. The songs ...]
  2. ^ Tensei Jingo (1989). 天声人語. Vol. 79. 原書房. pp. 58–. Miki's intimate friend, Kosaku Yamada, put the poem to music. Since then, loved and sung by the Japanese, it has deeply permeated their hearts. In a recent poll, Akatombo was ranked the most loved song among Japanese.
  3. ^ Paul Glynn (2012). Réquiem por Nagasaki (in Spanish). Francisco Sanchez-Bayo. pp. 172–. ISBN 978-1-4710-9963-2. A varios poemas de Nagai se les puso música de compositores japoneses renombrados, el más famoso de los cuales fue Kosaku Yamada, conocido y querido en todo el Japón por su extraordinaria composición Aka Tombo, esto es "La ... [Several of Nagai's poems were put to music by renowned Japanese composers, the most famous of which was Kosaku Yamada, known and loved throughout Japan for his extraordinary composition Aka Tombo ...]
  4. ^ Revista Chapingo: Serie Ciencias forestales y del ambiente (in Spanish). Vol. 7–9. Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. 2001. pp. 122–. Ésta es una frase de la canción de cuna japonesa más popular "Aka-tombo" (libélula roja) escrita por Rufu Miki y música compuesta por Kosaku Yamada (Mielewcz, 1982; Eda, 1994). [This is a phrase from the most popular Japanese lullaby "Aka-Tombo" (red dragonfly) written by Rufu Miki and with music composed by Kosaku Yamada]
  5. ^ 市川健夫; 吉本隆行 (2008). 信州ふるさとの歌大集成: 胸にしみる懐かしい調べ歌い継がれる信州のこころ (in Japanese). 一草舎出版. pp. 17–.
  6. ^ The New Records. Vol. 46–48. H.R. Smith Company. 1978. pp. 37–.
  7. ^ Paula Scher (1 August 2002). Make It Bigger (Media notes). Princeton Architectural Press. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-1-56898-332-5. AKA TOMBO, with its memories of autumn, is one of the most nostalgic of all Japanese songs. Kosaku Yamada composed songs, orchestral music and operas, as well as fostering the growth of orchestral music and serving as an orchestra conductor. Through the Meiji, Taisho and Showa Eras, he dominated the Japanese orchestral scene. AKA TOMBO is one of three lyric songs by Yamada using verses by Rofu Miki; it was composed in the second year of the Shows Era.
  8. ^ Denis Verroust (1991). Jean-Pierre Rampal: un demi-siècle d'enregistrements, de 1946 à 1992 : discographie exhaustive et commentée (in French). La Flûte traversière. pp. 126–.
  9. ^ Fanfare. 3-4. Vol. 18. J. Flegler. 1995. pp. 374–.
  10. ^ Bonnie C. Wade (13 January 2014). Composing Japanese Musical Modernity. University of Chicago Press. pp. 41–. ISBN 978-0-226-08549-4. ... characteristic of traditional koto music, variation 3 was written "with a bit of a modern touch," while the last (composed when she was twelve years old) was based on the beloved song "Aka tombo" ("Red Dragonfly"), by Kosaku Yamada.
  11. ^ William O. Hughes (1981). A concise introduction to school music instruction, K-8. Wadsworth Pub. Co. pp. 77–. ISBN 978-0-534-00897-0. Akatombo (The Scarlet Dragonfly) Words by Rofu Miki Music by Kosaku Yamada Yu - ya - ke ko - ya - ke no A-ka-to - n bo. (end of phrase 2) c1927 by Rofu Miki and Kosaku Yamada. Used by permission of JASRAC, license no. 7912157.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id

[edit]
The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id (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:NBOOK. Some SPAs on the talk page are claiming that it meets that; however, of the three sources they site, one is trivial (6 sentences on coverage of the book), one is a public access TV show interview that cannot be verified at the web address given, and the third is a press release from the author's employer, and thus is a connected source. I could find no better sources. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To address/rebut the above claims: From Wikipedia:Notability (books) A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

  • The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.

The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id by Aaron J. Lawler (2016) has been the subject of three non-trivial sources independent of the book itself:

  1. Suzanne Flynn's Kane County Chronicle article - a noteworthy news source servicing one of the largest counties in Illinois. Although Nat Gertler (above) has argued this is not noteworthy, the article meets Wikipedia's standards and is focused not only on the author but also on the novel and writing process. The criteria is about vetting sources, and this article is a verifiable and reliable source.
  2. The Chicago Cable25 News/CPRTV services the third largest market in the country, specifically the third largest local market. The interview with Jovie Calama, an entertainment personality highlighting Chicago artists of cultural significance, is the second corroborating source. The footage is archived with VIA Times the producer of the show and Cable25. After contact with the host, she will be also archiving the footage on YouTube as well as the site. Because the archive cannot be found online does not warrant deletion, as Wikipedia's own guidelines do not demand online archival.
  3. Although the third source, a press release from Waubonsee Community College, is connected to the author as his employer, this is a community college servicing the largest district in Illinois and an esteemed institution. Wikipedia's own criteria argue that although the rules it places for notability sreve as guidelines, the spirit of the rules are to establish credibility. Here, the backing of Waubonsee is not merely as an employer but a higher education institution which lends credence and merit to the work through its support of the novel, not the employee.

In addition, a number of other sources are being added each day, as is the spirit of Wikipedia - an ongoing, living body that is improved continually. As such a great number of links to other Wikipedia articles as well as outside sources continues to add to the merit of the article. Wikipedia thrives on interconnecting internally and externally, and this article does both. Furthermore this article adds to the culture.

All three sources provide enough credibility together - three distinct and respected institutions demonstrate the novel is of some cultural significance. Using Wikipedia's guidelines, this article does not warrant deletion. Hermes1416 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Hermes1416[reply]

Despite your phrasing, I did not claim that the Kane County Chronicle is not noteworthy itself. I claimed that the coverage in the article is trivial. Would Waubonsee have done a press release about the book had the author not been their employee? Well, given the lack of findable press releases about the book from all of the other institutions of higher education in the world about this book, I think we can safely say that the answer is no. They were promoting the book as part of promoting their employees and thus themselves. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete! The argument for deletion appears to be a subjective and opinion based argument. Wikipedia's guidelines and the spirit of those guidelines have been satisfied by two distinct sources and a third supplementary source. The argument to delete is based on non-noteworthy or notability clauses, yet being small and being published by a small publisher does not constitute non-noteworthiness. On the contrary the informs, adds to the body of knowledge of the culture, and provides up to date, current information - are these not the purposes of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an aggregate of content to enrich and educate. This artilce does this; it does not sell or promote and agenda, and it is corroborated by two distinct sources - the criteria of noteworthiness. I believe the proposal for deletion is biased. The article mirrors a number of other articles with like content in like categories. It makes connections between a number of internal sources and external sources. It provides useful information. The work contributres to our culture - even if small, it is not insignificant. To claim so, simply means that we are ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines and spirit, and will only follow a paradigm that is narrow. Why delete the article? How does it not add content and meaning? How is it insignificant if two news media outlets found it noteworthy? Hermes1416 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no coverage out there beyond local coverage and most of them seem to say basically the same thing, which is announcing that a local professor has published a book. The thing with local coverage is that it's greatly depreciated on Wikipedia as local papers are more likely to write about someone who lives in their area and writing about local people doing positive things makes the community look and feel better. I don't always agree with the deprecation of local coverage, but I can see their argument. I don't think that the local coverage is enough to justify inclusion in this situation, especially as none of them are reviews for the work. I'm also somewhat uncomfortable with the author section, which led to me removing the section. Portions of it look to have been closely paraphrased or outright taken from other sources. For example, the first sentence is fairly similar to part of this news article. It's very uncommon for book articles to contain sections about the author's life and general bio and when it is included it tends to be content that directly pertains to the book itself, as in the case of a book that mirrors the author's life or personal experiences. I didn't see where any of the material in this section warranted inclusion in the article, as the author's past work is not pertinent to the book in question and it's assumed that an author will have press releases written about him or her. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't pass NBOOK and while it'd really be nice if we could include more indie works, they still have to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, Hermes1416, if you are affiliated with the author then you need to disclose this. The book is fairly obscure, so it's unlikely that this was written by someone who isn't familiar with the author in some form or fashion. I also note that on this image you claim that the cover is your own work, which also gives off the impression that you are affiliated with Lawler. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article: A third news independent news source references the book, and has been added to the references. This satisfies Wikipedia's two source criteria, and continues to establish the notability; even if only locally covered. There's a lot of precedence in Wikipedia articles including indie works that are well known locally. Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about the Daily Herald piece - which is the college's press release already discussed above. Not an independent source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SKCRIT WP:KEEP : Meets the required two source (three sources provided). Is culturally significant and locally important. Links to lots of other articles. WP:SK : Why delete it? Its a good article, and it is being cleaned up by the editors below Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEP - Could we just jeep the article? Other editors above are cleaning it up, and its coming together nicely - thanks Tokyogirl and LadyShallot! Does keeping yhe article hurt Wikipedia? Could we just try and clean it up if there are errors?Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just linked in several different ways to information on "Speedy Keep" here, but don't state how it meets WP:SKCRIT... unsurprisingly, because it doesn't. Multiple editors have called for deletion, so criteria #1 and #2 are ruled out. I am not banned (so no #4), the page is not a policy or guideline (so no #5), and the article is not currently linked to from the main page, so no #6. So that leaves #3, which requires me not to have read the page in question, which is not the case. Please note that even the experienced editors you site as helping to improve the article are supporting its deletion. It's not a matter of errors, it's a matter of meeting our guidelines; Wikipedia is not intended to be a catalog of all books.
You currently have three !votes listed above - one "Keep article" and two "WP:KEEP". Can you please strike two of those out? We have a limit of one activate !vote per editor, and normally if someone posts two we just strike one out... but as you have posted two different !votes, I cannot be the one to decide which gets struck, it will have to be you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Nat but you seem to have some vendetta against this page, and are pretty hostile in your arguments. I think you're taking this personally (and to be frank are a bit smug, not an insukt but a concern on your impartiality). You continue to make the same arguments, and I'm sorry but there are at least two valid sources. You might not like it but there are two. Considering your own comflict of interets it seems iromic you will be so hsitile here - you literally have done this with your own articles. I bring this up NOT AS AN ATTACK but as a point - why not give this one small article a chance? It does meet the criteria. And las,tly, Wikipedia literally says that the deletion process is not a vote. Its about the content. Every thing you have said does not undo the spurces backing up the notability of the book - it is indie but still worthy. Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how explaining "speedy keep" or that you're not supposed to have more than one !vote active on the page is hostile, it's me trying to help a new editor understand the process. I'm not clear on what you're saying I've "literally done [...] with [my] own articles"; I've not cast a !vote on AfDs for Nat Gertler, if that's what you're trying to imply. There are many, many articles submitted that do not rise to our guidelines, and I do not see a reason to treat this one as an exception. Trying to paint me as a problem does not overcome the fact that every experienced editor who has voiced their opinion here has felt it should be deleted, so perhaps the case for keeping the page is not as clear as you're claiming. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I think the issue is not that I am trying to paint you any way. Its that even though the other "experienced" editors have suggested deletion they have gone in to help improve the article. I do not want this to turn into a flaming war or anything. My comments are really about how you have presented the information - you come off with an agenda. Unlike the others who have offered suggestions to improve and have gone in to improve the article. So and then there is your comments on Action Comics pages and what not. Is that not a conflict of interest - do you not have a personal interest in those articles? My point is not to say that one wrong excuses another, but exactly the opposite. What I am saying is that all articles have issues. And this one is not perfect, but can be improved. Your quick action to delete, and then your commitment to that agenda seems beyond the scope of just an "editor" with experience trying to help a young editor. So I have to ask why so committed to deletion? Because although you state the same arguments over and over, I am not sure they are any better each time??? ANd I appreciate you helping me with the Speedy Keep - you are right, I am learning! Fitz Faraday Fan (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look again at the history of the editing of the article. Even after nominating the article for deletion, I too did editing to improve the article, correcting spelling, punctuation, and getting it looking more like a standard Wikipedia article. When you see my comments on About Comics-related pages (would that I were the publisher of Action Comics, that would put me in a very different realm in this business), posting comments on talk pages related to you is how someone with a conflict of interest is supposed to primarily handle things, per our conflict of interest guidelines (which I suggest you review if you're going to be talking about people's conflicts). However, I have not accused you of a conflict of interest, and the person whose COI issue I did raise had that issue raised by the two other editors you singled out for praise as well (here and here.) When I point out that the "new source" you're pointing to is just the press release again, that's not my repeating an argument, that's me showing that your new argument doesn't significantly change matters. I have not said that this article could not be improved, but the improvements that I see would not overcome the central notability problem... and I suspect that the other delete-!voting editors who have been editing this page feel similarly, given that they have not changed their !votes (if you're not used to seeing the term "!vote", that means "not-a-vote", and is used to refer to the primary opinion statement of folks in discussions here.) My agenda is to help Wikipedia be the best it can be, and that includes making sure it is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a home base for hype, and I have put in the thousands of hours into that effort; it is not some personal vendetta against some single book that I'd not heard of before and would not be likely to run into otherwise.
So if you could stop trying to make this discussion about me, not only would I appreciate it, but your arguments would be more likely to carry weight. If you do have other comments about me that you'd like to make, I request that you take them to the talk page that's linked to in my signature. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify because I think there may be a bit of confusion: it is correct that AfD discussions are not votes. When someone refers to a !vote, that literally means "not-vote". It is an unfortunate bit of jargon I wish we wouldn't use, but it is commonly used here. LadyofShalott 15:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the author

[edit]

Hello all! What a spirited debate! I will begin with the disclosure that I am the author of The Marvelous Paracosm of Fitz Faraday and the Shapers of the Id. Hermes1216 and FitzFaradayFan are loosely connected to me in that they are fans who have reached out to me in a number of ways. It was their idea to create the Wikipedia post, and for that I thank them for their support! Its all humbling to be sure!

I am happy to provide any insight into the article itself. I did give Hermes1214 permission to use the cover (which was actually designed by David King of Black Rose Writing) and the two illustrations which are in fact mine. I believe there might be some confusion there.

I also believe that my lectures on "bias", "Wikipedia" and "small press" may have helped embolden some of the claims that are being debated back and forth (I have compiled these into my personal bio here on Wikipedia - as you can see I am new to the Wikisphere, as it were). In any event, if I can shed some light on the debate here, I think first and foremost, I believe in supporting small press endeavors. I also do not believe that any academic/professional, no matter the background, can truly come to a discussion without bias. The lecture I typically share concerns "color blindness" and "race". To say one is color blind is to simply fight ignorance with more ignorance, and furthermore, is disingenuous. We all bring biases, and when we are transparent about them, it makes for a more honest and productive debate.

My input, small press and notability
[edit]

Solicited or not, my hope in adding my two cents will offer some conflict resolution. I think what FitzFaradayFan and Hermes1412 have argued comes from the same origin point in my own philosophy concerning Wikipedia. I believe in the five pillars, and strongly believe in the open source, free to edit/contribute mantra. We all bring some level of expertise to topics, and what better sources than primary sources? This could be considered a conflict of interest, but I consider it primary sourcing. In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, I do not believe the article promotes, sells, or advertises. Simply informing others about a small, yet if I dare say in the most modest of ways, significant work should be in line with Wikipedia's mission. But if it is not, then I defer to you more experienced editors and ask how would a small press book like this one get notability? What credibility would it need to warrant sharing of its content and its message with those who would be willing to listen?

The question of notability is one in which that cannot be severed from small press in general. Small press is by definition less notable than say the Big Four. Acknowledging that small press has its own hurdles to overcome, I understand that establishing notability is challenge. Perhaps this article was made prematurely, as the novel was only released in November and there is going to be more opportunities for it gain credibility. I believe a number of the comments concern that lack of reviews, which I will admit there are few formal reviews and most of the press surrounding the book is intimately linked to me. However, there is cause; this partially due to the fact that I meant the work as a teaching tool. Although fiction, it provides a number of Common Core opportunities, and I in fact created a curriculum to coincide with the novel's release. In any event, it appears my career and the novel have somehow become intertwined.

Where to go from here?
[edit]

Both Hermes1216 and FitzFaradayFan have asked for help. I have decided to step in, not just to support their work (and humbly, my own) but also my strong belief in Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia as a teaching tool in a variety of ways, and I would be remiss if I did not say that I was quite pleased to hear that my book was going to be a part of the encyclopedia (and of course saddened to hear of the issues surrounding the book's addition).

I know, as a user of Wikipedia, there have been countless times I have come to the site and wished there were articles or more information on a given topic. As an avid reader, there are often obscure works that never seem to have enough content and remain in the stub category. I believe this is what these two individuals were simply trying to do. Intentions aside (the road to perdition paved with good ones!), I must press once more, what could we do to preserve their work? They believe passionately in what they tried to do, and alas, possibly due to some of my influence concerning my celebration of small press.

I understand that Wikipedia has a specific role, but I do not believe that role is merely a collection of "notable information." If that were true, then Wikipedia would not solicit input from the community. Nor would Wikipedia contain the clause that there are no rules, just guidelines. My understanding is that the page will not be deleted right away, until this discussion comes to a close. When might that be? What is the timeline? Given that timeline, what can be done to improve the quality of the page? What is specifically missing? For instance, if I look at similar articles on similar books, I do not see much discrepancy. So is it simply a "luck of the draw?" I know that each article is treated on its own and that one decision does not influence the next, yet if that is completely true, then citing standards from other decisions makes little sense either. If we say this book is less notable than say "X" or "Y" then we are using standards. And if we are using standards, then they should be applied equally.

My final thoughts
[edit]

I am intimately connected to this article via the subject/content and the originators. They are my fans, for whom I will always support. There are few, as this is a small publication from a small publisher. But I believe in small publishers; I believe they, if for no other reason, pose an alternative to the Big Four. Why should four companies dictate what is part of our literature when 99% of books are not part of their repertoire or best sellers?

I am most concerned about preaching a lie. Does Wikipedia offer opportunities for an open source project, or not? If something can be created, moderated, retooled and refinished, why then tear it down?

Is this self-serving? Of course! But the truth is, all of our actions are, even the most selfless are carried out for the self-serving purposes of goodness, righteousness, and justice. I care about the work these two individuals did and I care about why they did it. And I believe they did it within the guidelines, the scope and the spirit of Wikipedia - specifically in terms of the five pillars, but also in terms of is this not what we want for Wikipedia? Do we not want primary sources contributing expertise to help create the greatest wealth of knowledge the world has ever known?

Thank you for listening and humoring my objection. Please let me know what I can do as the author.

Aaron J. Lawler 23:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming in and expending so much time and energy making your thoughts known. I do not have a lot of time at the moment and will address what I can, quickly; forgive any abruptness.
  • You ask what you can do to preserve their work. The quick answer is to save a copy and feel free to use it elsewhere on the web should it end up deleted. Their work and the work of everyone else that has worked on the article is released under appropriate creative commons licenses. Wikipedia is not meant to be the one and only reference source.
  • If your question is really meant "how can I keep this page in place", well, the main thing that you can do is to make the book achieve recognized notability. Win some major awards, get reviewed in the sort of book review places that have impact in the book world. (And yes, I'm sure you'd like to have all that happen for reasons besides Wikipedia.) The experienced editors who have weighed in against the presence of this article have all done so on the basis of notability. I realize that this is unlikely to happen within the week that these discussions usually run, but there is nothing preventing the page being reestablished in the future should there be a significant change in notability. The eventual 60th president of the United States is just a baby now, and would likely have her page deleted at this point as well; that doesn't mean she can't get one later, once she's established herself.
  • I understand that it is hard for a small press book to achieve the necessary level of notability; for that matter, most major publisher books do not end up with a page here either.
  • You ask "what better sources than primary sources?", and I expect that was intended to be rhetorical, but in Wikipedia's view, secondary sources are better than primary. See WP:PRIMARY for more information.
  • You come across as though you feel that Wikipedia should provide a countermeasure to the system's bias against the small publisher, but there is a long list of things that Wikipedia is not, and among them is that it's not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is by it's nature a follower, not a leader, in regards to what is considered important.
  • I will try to address the question of your images later on your user talk page, but in quick summary: you have to be the one to officially agree to permissions, a general granting of permission to a friend is not sufficient... and the cover image (particularly the one that was uploaded) may not be something that you have the permissions for in the first place.
Overall, some of your comments seem to suggest that you want to redirect Wikipedia somewhat (whether you recognize that or not), and the deletion discussion for an individual page is really not the place to achieve that. This is the tail end of the chain.
Good luck with your book! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend creating a wiki for the series on Wikia, offhand. You get a lot more leeway on there. Other than that... hmmm... I'd recommend hitting up some of the places that do book reviews and are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. The AV Club is good and occasionally reviews indie works. Tor.com is also a good place to check out and SFcrowsnest isn't bad, although it's lower on the list of RS for book reviews and articles. Locus Online is good, but harder to get a review from. You might want to give io9 a try. Of course it's not as easy as submitting your book and getting a review, but if your fans write in asking for coverage for your work then that can make it more likely that they'll cover the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's got a good start, but not enough external coverage to meet GNG. Might be WP:TOOSOON South Nashua (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep? After reading through Wikipedia's Deadline policy just as there are issues of too soon, there is also some precedence for No rush to delete. I will continue to garner new outside verifiable sources in an effort to improve the article. If the article is deleted (again, what is the dealine?) when can it be resubmitted for review/appeal? Aaron J. Lawler 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronJLawler (talk • contribs)
  • Delete or Draftify sources are all local or promotional. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:55, 28 February 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 - Speedily Deleted (WP:G7) (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Importance and basic experiments of science

[edit]
Importance and basic experiments of science (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:NOTESSAY. PROD declined. It's an essay, with no encyclopaedic value. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's Halo

[edit]
Alison's Halo (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:BAND. The references are facebook and bandcamp with the exception of one Allmusic bio and a blog. Justeditingtoday (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional Keep A google search turned up a year old dedicated article in the Phoenix New Times, which I added to a new section "Further Reading." So that's a second dedicated reliable source. I suggest leaving the article for, perhaps, a year to see if they make any headway in major media. If not, then delete.Tapered (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been in existence since 2006. What would another year do that the previous eleven failed to do? Justeditingtoday (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because, in fact, they are still getting media coverage - e.g. here. StAnselm (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*DeleteInsufficient dedicated coverage in reliable sources. Fails notability. Comment of User:Justeditingtoday persuaded me. Tapered (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm restoring my provisional keep and striking out my delete. I thought that Justediting was referring the New Times article being 10 years old (and a reprint), but he was referring to the Wikipedia article in question. That was the reason for my delete. My bad. Tapered (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comment That's an opinion, not backed by references or Wikipedia guidelines. For practical purposes, useless. Tapered (talk) 06:05, 24 February 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 Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurie Proton Therapy Center

[edit]
The Laurie Proton Therapy 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)

Not seeing sufficient notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 19 February 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) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachata Mythology

[edit]
Rachata Mythology (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)

Totally unverifiable. I have tried searching, extensively, in Thai, for what may have been the Thai versions of the names given in the article, and was able to identify zero results related to what's here. Multiple iterations in Thai of "Anurak Wongwannayut", the claimed compiler of the story, also returned zero Ghits. The two links listed in the References section contain no mention of the article subject. I don't think this is a deliberate hoax, but at best it's purely WP:OR, and thus doesn't warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:46, 19 February 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) 04:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Youshaei

[edit]
Jon Youshaei (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)

Brand new digital marketeer who is not notable and fails WP:BIO. A number of sources are present, mostly pushed by Google (on placement) and most are digital marketing of one type or another. Nothing about why he is notable. scope_creep (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:51, 19 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaibin Huang

[edit]
Kaibin Huang (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 criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia:Notability (academics) at this time. Citobun (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which appears to have concluded that this is a class project of some kind, rather than sockpuppetry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 23 February 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) 04:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Robots (series)

[edit]
Rise of the Robots (series) (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 a total of two games in the Rise of the Robots series. This article just retells the information that is already available at their respective articles. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though the two games in this series are certainly notable, the series itself has no independent notability. Additionally, as a practical matter, there's no sense in having an article which consists of information copy-and-pasted from two other articles. It creates unnecessary maintenance work for editors, and it's simpler and more intuitive for readers to access the articles on the individual games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the current consensus among the Video Games WikiProject is that two entries is not enough to warrant a series article, considering all info can usually pretty easily fit into either individual entry's article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted I would also recommend deleting the series trmplate.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree even if it's kept. Almost all the entries on it are tangentially related. There's no need to "navigational aid" among those items. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 23 February 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) 04:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ustinov

[edit]
Artur Ustinov (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)

Unexceptional, non-notable, recently qualified lawyer. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:58, 19 February 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fighter vs repatriated from West Pakistan issue in Bangladesh Army

[edit]
Freedom fighter vs repatriated from West Pakistan issue in Bangladesh Army (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 nomination was attempted by 119.148.3.14 (talk · contribs) who opined here: POV fork, non neutral style and bare urls, Overall poor quality of editing. Note use of peacock words "freedom fighter" and "brutal". I can add, that the matter is briefly mentioned in Hussain Muhammad Ershad, and if it deserves expansion, I think the natural place would be in Bangladesh Army, not as a stand-alone article. The article title is IMO totally obscure. Delete per WP:DEL5. — Sam Sailor 11:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator claims this is a WP:POVFORK, but there is zero evidence of that. If it is a fork, what article was it forked from? Was there any disagreement about the content of that article? Does this article espouse a different POV from another article? The subject is briefly mentioned in Hussain Muhammad Ershad, but only in the narrow context of his keeping a lid on the rivalry during his rule. All the evidence is that the original author had three reliable sources (a book from a publisher specializing in military history, a book from a university press, and a book from a major academic publisher) that all discuss a vital historical cleavage in the Bangladesh Army, and thought the topic merited an article.
None of the nom's other objections are reasons to delete an article. All can be fixed by editing. Indeed, the bare urls and word 'brutal' already have been. The English is sub-standard, perhaps it is not the authors first language, but I see no evidence of intentional "non neutral style". 'Freedom fighter' can be a loaded term. One could perhaps call them revolutionaries or rebels, but freedom fighters is what the sources call them, albeit one puts the words in quotes.
With respect to participants' questions "if it deserves expansion" and "if it was really an issue of note", I quote from the Library of Congress's public domain Bangladesh: A Country Study:

The bitter rift between military personnel who returned to Bangladesh after liberation and freedom fighters who had fought in the war was to have profound consequences for the new nation. The repatriates, who had languished in West Pakistani jails during the civil war, were absorbed into an army dominated by former guerrillas ... The rift between repatriates and freedom fighters worsened considerably ... Tensions within the military exploded on August 15, 1975, when thirty middle-ranking army officers, many of whom were repatriates, staged a coup ... the mutineers assassinated Mujib [the President] ... Freedom-fighter elements within the army countered this so-called "majors' plot" by staging a coup of their own ... A total breakdown in discipline within the military occurred shortly after this second coup ... [Zia] staged a third coup ...

This goes on for several pages. Although the split within the military wasn't the only factor driving events, reliable sources say it contributed to multiple coups, years of military dictatorship, and still reverberates today between the two major political parties, led for three decades by the daughters of Mujib and Zia respectively.
The only point on which I can agree with the nominator is that the title is awful. Absent a better one, merge. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:50, 24 February 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) 04:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siegmund Klein

[edit]
Siegmund Klein (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 particular reason of notability. One source (3) is dead, one is a general family tree and the book appears to be a collection of letters. TheMagikCow (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Main contributor appears to have a large COI in the subject. One source [11] (personal website with genalogical information) has the same web address as the username - suggesting that there is a personal connection between the article's subject and contributor.

Answer

Siegmund Klein was my grandfather, Ilse Klein my mother and Giorgio Sacerdoti is my brother. Nevertheless I think that an article on Siegmund Klein has a right to exist, in connection with the stolperstein in Cologne. You can see on this website in German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Stolpersteine_im_K%C3%B6lner_Stadtteil_Neustadt-Nord the description of his life written by someone I dont't know and will probably write the German article on Siegmund Klein in connection with the English one. The www.msacerdoti.it is my website, the stolpersteine page collects all the articles that have been written at the time of the stolpersteine placement. The book is not only a collection of letters but a complete story of Siegmund Klein and his family during the war. It had a large success and was presented in Berlin Shoah Museum and in Cologne. A translation has been published in Italy and one will be published in English.

MSacerdoti (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MSacerdoti (talk) 00:22, 21 February 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. non-notable vanity page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Arya

[edit]
Ashutosh Arya (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)

Some notability exists, but in it's current form and taking into account that it definitely a self promotional article it can't stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7: Fails to pass WP:GNG and a case of autobiography. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:44, 19 February 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) 04:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SSSniperWolf

[edit]
SSSniperWolf (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 about a non-notable youtuber. Has a lot of subscribers but the only reference is to a wikia. Youtubers are not automatically notable, fails WP:GNG. Laurdecl talk 08:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this would be eligible for A7, as being a popular youtuber sounds significant. Laurdecl talk 08:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No criticism was intended (although it probably sounds that way, for which I can only say sorry) - it's one of those highly subjective areas, and it's highly likely that I'm on the wrong side of it - all I meant was that personally, I didn't see any claim for notability. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was criticism, I was just trying to say that... actually, I don't know why I replied... Laurdecl talk 09:53, 19 February 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) 04:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thompson (athlete)

[edit]
Michael Thompson (athlete) (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)

Undrafted article created. No references or citations used, neither is proper formatting for the article. Fails WP:GNG. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 07:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:54, 19 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ray Ramsey

[edit]
Paul Ray Ramsey (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 coatrack, although now I have removed the coatrack content. This biography was created by a user about to be blocked for two months. The weblinks barely mention the subject - there is no biographical content - it is basically an attack page, attacking someone or other that is not the subject of the biography, a coatrack, awful, wikipedia at its worst. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 26 February 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) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeXt (ATB album)

[edit]
NeXt (ATB album) (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)

Album has received no awards, and has not yet been the subject of any discussion in reliable independent sources. KDS4444 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 19 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namrata Purohit

[edit]
Namrata Purohit (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 person who is a pilates instructor does not meet WP:GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, She is a trainer whose clients comprise of A-list Bollywood celebrities/notable personalities. She has also released a book on the same. All these people have spoken about her in various forms and she runs a very successful business in Mumbai. Wouldn't that count in the notable category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisfinal (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thisisfinal: Being a trainer of a notable person doesn't make one notable. Every subject on Wikipedia must be notable independently and this looks like a low-profile individual. I also don't see if it passes WP:AUTHOR as well and you mentioned she runs a very successful business so it would be nice if the article mentioned what kind of business she is in. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987: I am trying to get a hang of Wikipedia, so please excuse my mistakes. I read the points on the page for Low Profile Individual, and she seems to fulfil all the points of a high profile individual. Listing them down as per my understanding:

Media Attention - she has been featured in magazines, newspapers and business newspapers too Promotional appearances: Has launched her own book which was attended by various notable personalities. Appearances: Reebok & Superdry have felicitated her and thrown an event in her honor Eminence: She is prominently known & credited for her work as a trainer, with her clientele including several notable personalities and her studio in Bombay is very famous and is said to be expanding to other cities as well, I read that on one of her articles.

Please do help, I have created 3-4 pages but facing a lot of problems with this particular page, if someone can guide me on this, would be great. Thisisfinal (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: All the articles I read about her showed her notability beyond just being a celebrity trainer, which is why I picked her page as one to create. There are detailed magazine articles, stories+interviews covering her work & her book in business newspapers - not just fluff sources. Thisisfinal (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes and Thisisfinal: Where are the secondary, third party sources establishing notability? even the current sources failed to indicate why the subject is notable? I agree with SW3 5DL above none of the citations provide in-depth coverage of her. They credit her for being a trainer of some Bollywood celebrities but still nothing much to support independent notability and WP:AUTHOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be misreading the notability guidelines. When an individual's life is covered significantly by multiple sources, the individual is presumed to qualify on general notability. The sources don't need to mention that this person has achieved some milestone or has been conferred some award. The current sources cover her life significantly. That's enough per GNG. Lourdes 10:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Out of 13 sources, I found only 4 (2,3,4 and 6) which talk about the subject in details but in the form of an interview which should be treated like self-published material and the rest of the sources has more focus on her celebrity client so I don't think it's enough for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, your reading of sources is against our guidelines. Being known for being a celebrity trainer is no less than being known for being an astronaut. I respect your difference of opinion though. Thanks. Lourdes 02:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: This sources published by Huffington Post India (huffingtonpost.in) is a passing mention in a non-independent source. Her name was listed becasue she was one of the 12 girls who featured in Nike's advertisment. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is Huffington Post "non-independent"? Lourdes provided plenty of other sources. I'm not planning on changing my vote, because the source I looked at are more than sufficient. I think your standards for notability are too high. But reasonable people can disagree. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the source is independent to the subject? it's a clear passing mention which is fine to support her role in that advertisment but not to support notability and I also explained that we can not use interviews to support notability either per WP:IV. Please read what SW3 5DL has said as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that she is notable only because of her clients is also not valid. It stems from the archaic idea that a fitness trainer cannot have any independent notability, and is not based on facts. Costume designers, Make up artists, Hair stylists gain notability because their reputed clientele act as advertisements of their work, as is the case with this fitness trainer. That does not imply that practitioners of such jobs are non-notable on their own right, just because their clients happened to be A-listers. (Please rewrite the article with these new references Thisisfinal) Jupitus Smart 05:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Additional references added Thisisfinal (talk) 06:40, 27 February 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) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saadeldin Abouaish

[edit]
Saadeldin Abouaish (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet GNG or notability guidelines for athletes. Unable to find a RS to confirm that "females often vie for his attention". DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:15, 19 February 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) 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floating di Morel

[edit]
Floating di Morel (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 band. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 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) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros conspiracy theories

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
George Soros conspiracy theories (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: Fails WP:GNG, possible WP:BLP violation. This page, albeit dedicated to conspiracy theories about Soros, doesn't actually have any bona fide conspiracies. This seems more like an attack against Soros who does not really feature in the sources. Rather, the sources all point to Glenn Beck's claims. If Beck believes these things, then it can be included on his BLP. As it stands now, it seems like a WP:BLP violation to give a platform for unsourced theories about a living person by another. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page consisting of WP:BLP violations that have no place anywhere on wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the page lacks anything about purported funding of protests against Donald Trump, there are a large percentage of Americans who believe that he funded protests the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. Specifically, a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling showed 18% of American voters and 38% of people who voted for Donald Trump believe that. This should satisfy the requirement for notability. Based on that, the article should not be deleted and instead expanded and or reworked. poll cited Addisnog (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, and there is RS to support that, then that's not a conspiracy. Soros doesn't hide his donations to groups or his intentions politically. But this page is nothing more than Glenn Beck's opinions. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Public opinion polls about something is not how we determine notability or neutrality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 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) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfal family (Claudia and Rudolf)

[edit]
Westfal family (Claudia and Rudolf) (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 prod was removed earlier on a technicality. No external links, I couldn't find any after a quick search. The article is in severe need of cleanup, unclear if there are any external links that can be added to save this. South Nashua (talk) 05:11, 19 February 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) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Armstrong Elliott

[edit]
Philip Armstrong Elliott (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 fails WP:GNG as the only coverage this subject gets (even in WP:BEFORE searches) is in genealogy sites which is not significant. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 05:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the nominator is flatly wrong that the "onlycoverage this subject gets... is in genealogy sites." He is mentioned in several published books about Trudeau. I'm not saying that's enough, he certainly does not seem to be independently notable -- just that the statement is incorrect. That said, the Trudeaus did come from wealthy parentage, and Elliott did not live that long ago. May be possible to find newspaper coverage of him from the period -- I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I encourage Shawn in Montreal to produce these "several published books" because I didn't see them in Google search; I think KAP03 is exactly right. I don't see a claim of notability though I was able to find this patent from 1907 which may involve this subject. Again, there's no general notability here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to see the books, click on the "books" link in the Afd template. The top two results in particular. Again, I'm not claiming these passing mentions make him notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no notability established nor found. Article consists mostly of irrelevant genealogical details (who was of which religion, etc). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Even just a few years ago we still had the ability to search Montreal newspaper archives from the period -- I recall because it had been a help to me in saving other historical bio articles from the era. But unless someone comes along with better search access than I to papers of the period -- which is to say, any search capacity at all, it seems -- there's no way of knowing the level of coverage this "prominent Scots-Quebecer entrepreneur" might have received, in his day. Too bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on newspapers.com or genealogybank that is clearly about this Philip Elliott (using various spellings). Searching with no middle name or initial, there was a Philip Elliot who assaulted an actress named Violet Anderson in Montreal in 1926, but I'm pretty sure it is not the same individual. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's certainly a valid potential claim of notability here ("prominent entrepreneur"), but it's not one that can stand referenced only to a user-generated family tree on geni.com. It's also not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of any substance about his business activities, and neither does he inherit an automatic inclusion freebie just for being an ancestor of PET and JT. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody actually can track down a viable claim of notability and the quality of sourcing necessary to support it, but I haven't been able to find anything with the resources available to me. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources @Shawn in Montreal: Your source, monsieur, an article in the Ottawa Citizen "A proud Scot who loved his mother: Trudeau belonged to the Elliot Clan Society and paid his fees throughout the years. Julia Elliott reports" 3 October 2000 describing Pierre Trudeau with the this ancestry. Article si written by a Julia Elliot, a self described member of the "Eliot Clan Society" (here is Trudeau's section under "Famous Eliots" on the Society's page [25]) who recalls Trudeau attending a Clan meetings "fall evening in 1984 at Nepean's Cedarhill Golf and Country Club". Canadians don't appear to have the sort of genealogists who track down every ancestor of every President, but this looks real and if it was it would seem to me that some Pure laine would have written this up in the Francophone press in the 70s or 80s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That source clearly falls on the wrong side of the distinction, routinely observed at AFD, between "coverage about the subject that confers notability for something" and "coverage that just verifies the subject's existence by namechecking the fact within coverage or something or someone else", though. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, nor did I argue to keeping although it does seem plausible that a prosperous businessman might be notable. I do apoligize for casting aspersions Canadian genealogists; clearly they're all over this Trudeau grandparent [26].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 22 February 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shimmer and Shine Elasto Painters

[edit]
Shimmer and Shine Elasto Painters (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)

Cut-and-paste move and blatant hoax. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:33, 19 February 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living Presidents of the United States

[edit]
Living Presidents of the United States (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:INDISCRIMINATE for this is just an excessive listing of miscellaneous statistics. Fails WP:LISTN for the time period in which a former president is living has not been discussed in RS. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I add:
1. Also more relevant: periods of non-president (between killing of JFK and swearing in of LBJ?, temporally one pres below zero?).
2. And what about that Haig/Reagen 'takeover'?
3. Logically correct in the article table, but weird reading: the 1st inauguration of George Washington is mentioned (+1 living pres), but not his second one (no pres died that day).
- DePiep (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have expressed some thoughts, but they are not of much relevance to this AFD .If you want other articles, or additions to existing articles, go and do some editing. Edison (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Already did. -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 26 February 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) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C.W. Johnston

[edit]
C.W. Johnston (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. Biography of the mayor of a small village, sourced only to a general history of the village published by the local historical society (which thus constitutes a brief namecheck of his existence rather than a source that's substantively about him.) There's no real substance here to deem him notable, as the article consists entirely of basic biographical detail that has no bearing on his notability whatsoever but contains nothing about his actual career as mayor -- and there's not nearly enough sourcing here to suggest a WP:GNG claim either. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 19 February 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) 04:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strelsa Schreiber

[edit]
Strelsa Schreiber (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. A thorough search is unable to locate substantial and sustained mentions. Fails POLOUTCOMES. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 20 February 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) 04:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spähpanzer Ru 251

[edit]
Spähpanzer Ru 251 (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 only references are direct or indirect to World of Tanks so any data is likely bogus. This vehicle was just a single prototype with further development cancelled so it does not deserve an article due to lack of importance. Denniss (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the World of Tanks is 'likely bogus'? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WoT is a game and has many ahistorical vehicles and/or ahistorical equipment/armament options. Thus it's an unreliable source for anything. Both article "sources" are either directly related to WoT or have their info from WoT. The only other option to delete is a redirect to WoT article. --Denniss (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniss: I agree that World of Tanks is a game, but you have not convinced me yet that this reference relies on questionable data--or any data--from the game. They even have a picture supposedly of that tank that appears to be in a museum. If so, that seems pretty notable to me. However, I can't pin down *any* information on the people who created that site, or any sources they have used to compile the information. It certainly doesn't look like scholarly work--however, tank enthusiasts I have met often aren't scholars but know the subject well. Have you seen any information on www.tanks-encyclopedia.com that you know is in error or have good reason to believe is unreliable? Do you know of a more comprehensive tank compendium WP:RS on-line or elsewhere that could give a good metric for comparison? I'm going to ask a friend who was into tanks what he thinks. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked with my friend who said this is a reliable source: Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide. We have an article Chris Foss. I am not sure it is the same person. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in this source says it is in the Munster German Tank Museum (German wikipedia version). The curator is Ralf Raths. I tried without luck to find a full inventory of all of the exhibits. I looked through this set of pictures (and this set) of items in that museum, but did not see the same picture. It is similar to the Leopards, but has slightly different features, such as fewer roadwheels and a different main gun. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep -- I'm not going to go against consensus.has twoone source this which is probably not enough and per other editors comments and I see no need to delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC) (revised 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • obliterate with superior firepower Come on people: do you really think that if this were a real thing, it could be cited to something better than a bunch of computer game sites?!?!?!?!?!?!? There is endless interest in tanks and numerous books cataloging very little variant, yet the only book reference I could find to the name was one picture which could have been of anything (I couldn't get a look at it); there was no evidence that it was even a tank. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Is this reference a game site? Did you look in Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide by Christopher Foss? I'm told this is a good source. We have an article Chris Foss. I am not sure it is the same person. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in this source says it is in the Munster German Tank Museum (German wikipedia version). The curator is Ralf Raths. I tried without luck to find a full inventory of all of the exhibits. I looked through this set of pictures (and this set) of items in that museum, but did not see the same picture. It is similar to the Leopards, but has slightly different features, such as fewer roadwheels and a different main gun. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per notability guidelines for a stand alone article and WP:V; non-RS sources for citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mentions of this tank appear in a Google Books search. Given the vast literature on tanks (even very obscure models), this almost certainly means that this tank never existed. The claim in the article that the tank was "classified top secret" is highly dubious: tank development has always been a surprisingly open process, with governments classifying the exact details of tanks rather than their existence. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: I'll accept your (and others') expertise in this. Also there appears to me only the one source I gave. That said, what do you think the picture is in this source? (It says it is in the tank museum in Munster, though I searched their inventory above and could not find it.) If I could be convinced that was another model of tank, then I would be fully convinced no such tank ever existed. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:47, 26 February 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) 04:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Roberts

[edit]
Giles Roberts (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 page is a hoax Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Giles Hyatt Roberts - Ancestry.com". Retrieved 20 February 2017. Yes No No Not mentioned ✘ No
"Texas State Library and Archives Commission". tsll.texas.gov. State Government of Texas. May 20, 2016. Yes Yes No No hits in db ✘ No
Fordham, Tom. "Index to Military Rolls of the Republic of Texas 1835-1845". tshaonline.org. Retrieved May 17, 2016. Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
"General Andrew Jackson". hermitage.com. 2016. Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
Eric Jay Dolin (5 July 2011). Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in America. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-07924-1. pages=197, 204–206, 214 Yes Yes No Not mentioned on any page ✘ No
"Frontier Legends: Explorers, Trappers and Traders". legendsofamerica.com. Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
"Maryland Vital Records". Yes Yes ? Not checked, requires registration ? Unknown
Roberts, Giles (1833). "Giles Roberts Journal: 1833, Province of Texas, Mexico". Journal of Giles Roberts, 1833. No ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake ✘ No
"Fort Mims, Records". fortmims.org. Yes ? No Not mentioned ✘ No
Roberts, Giles Hyatt (1823). "1823, June". Roberts Account, Journal of Giles Roberts 1823, month of June, Arikara ordeal. No ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake ✘ No
Bagley, Will (2016). "South Pass". WyoHistory.org. Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
Eric Jay Dolin (5 July 2011). Fur, Fortune, and Empire: The Epic History of the Fur Trade in America. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-07924-1. pages=210, 256–260, 319–322 Yes Yes No Not mentioned on any page ✘ No
Irving, Washington. The Rocky Mountains: or Scenes, Incidents, and Adventures in the Far West. Norman, Okla. pages=422, 235, 277–284 Yes Yes No Not mentioned on any page ✘ No
Bader (1828). "Bader accounts, Binsley and Roberts, western territories, lost". Bader, John accounts of Robers, Binsley in western territories. ? ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake, notice spelling error "Robers" ? Unknown
Roberts (1839). "family, child and wife, death". child death and Star. No ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake, "child death and Star"?? ✘ No
Roberts (1831). "Roberts account, 1831-1833, northern Mexico, province of Texas". Roberts journal northern Mexico 1831. No ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake ✘ No
Roberts (1841). "Athena, Cuba". Giles Roberts Journal, Cuba, 1841. No ? Can't confirm it exists ? Not checked, not found, looks fake ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Theoharis

[edit]
Liz Theoharis (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)

Promotional and non-notable. Worldcat lists only 1 book, Always with us which is not yet in any libraries--all her other publications" listed here are just essays in a collection or book chapters. Ref 1 is an unreliable press release, ref 2 a local article in he home city paper (I remove an article from the NYT that barely mentioned her) . Everything else in the article is her own presentations. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reads more like a promotional piece than a neutral Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Would pass WP:GNG as activist? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:PROF (per WP:TOOSOON). The "two decades" bit in the lead is pure puffery (though it comes from a reliable source) - that could describe almost any Christian minister. What we have here is still a run-of-the-mill pastor-theologian. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, this is the first article I have submitted to Wikipedia and I am still learning the ropes. I thought the idea was that article development is an iterative process? This is just a first draft, I have more to add, but work obligations will keep me from doing it until next weekend. I don't understand why it would be immediately marked for deletion, rather than a stub that requires more development? I have read the documents on notability and I don't see anything that would justify deleting the New York Times source because it "only" includes one quote from Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, while the whole second half of the article, 11 paragraphs, is about the organization she founded and runs, the Poverty Initiative. I also don't see anything that would render the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel not a credible source simply because she was born in Milwaukee. Is there such a rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydf15 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reference about the organization will support an article on the organization. References need to give substantial coverage of the actual subject of the article. And I doubt the organization is notable either. It is not an independent organization, but just a program of Union Theological Seminary, and we rarely make articles in such circumstances.
But what further development of the article do you suggest is now possible? If her 2017 book should be a success and get major reviews in mainstream magazines and newspapers, there is a much better chance she'd be notable, and you could try again ,preferably in Draft space. If she should eventually write a second book, and that also is a success, then she probably will be notable, and you should certainly try again.
The article attracted my attention because the notability hinges on a book that is just now being published; in my experience that usually indicates an article written to promote the book. Not always of course, but usually. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 19 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 21:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Youth Symphony Orchestra

[edit]
Montreal Youth Symphony Orchestra (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 with the following rationale: "Added many more references for proving, including sources from the Canadian encyclopedia and the official orchestra list from Orchestra Canada's website." While those citations prove the organization exists, which was never questioned, the original reason still stands, simply not enough in-depth coverage to show it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 19 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_19&oldid=1142619202"