Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

NGC 428

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, with no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Non-notable Galaxy. Only thing approaching in depth coverage appears to be the caption on the NASA image of the. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Please define not notable Galaxy? There have been recent discoveries, there is a NASA Picture of the Day feature, this makes it notable. And as pointed out in the edit summary from recent updates, other articles on galaxies are not much longer either. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Prokaryotes: What makes a notable Galaxy is the same as what makes a notable anything else, significant in depth coverage in independent sources. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why the second argument doesn't hold water. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stuart, I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination, since it rather clearly meets two of the criteria set forth in WP:NASTRO. First, it satisfies criterion two, since it is listed as an NGC object, which in itself is enough to satisfy the guideline. Furthermore, it also meets criterion four, since it was discovered by Herschel in 1786, and the guideline states that any astronomical object discovered before 1850 is notable. --Biblioworm (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Biblioworm: You appear to have misread WP:NASTRO, it says that both of these classes are probably notable, it doesn't have a definite ruling. I will, however, be more than happy to withdraw my nom in the face of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', per the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says: "If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article." GNG states that an article is notable if "[i]t meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline..." WP:NASTRO is a subject-specific guideline, and the requirement is that the object is likely notable if it meets any of the criteria listed, if this is proven with other sources. The article's satisfaction of the two criteria mentioned can be proven, via this NASA article, and an article from Softpedia News, if you feel that NASA is not independent enough. Both sources are completely dedicated to the subject, so there is significant coverage as defined in WP:GNG (e.g., "directly and in detail"). --Biblioworm (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also added journal study from 1996.prokaryotes (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as per the peer review articles recently added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7 no indication of significance DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ViewIn

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

This student club has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article are all from the group's web site. Whpq (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep, clearly not going to happen (non-admin close). shoy (reactions) 14:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the verified oldest people

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

"Verified" in this case means "verified by the Gerontological Research Group". This article's content is a duplicate of that at Oldest people and Oldest living people, where names may be sourced to other reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women to this AfD because their content is duplicated in List of the verified oldest people which in turn duplicates content in the articles listed above. Ca2james (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful list. The Oldest living people has the disadvantage that you have to do a lot of work when someone dies. Georgia guy (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the opening line in this article: "This is a list of the world's verified oldest people, verified to the standards of an international body widely recognized for specific expertise in longevity research, such as the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records." ---> The verifying body does NOT have to be the GRG. It just so happens that, as of the present moment, there isn't another organisation which is as widely recognised (although others do exist). But the idea that - because this article is referenced to just that source - it should be deleted is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with referencing an authoritative body, we see this elsewhere on Wikipedia. An article like this is something likely to be of great interest to many people so should definitely remain, but it should only be a list of people whose ages are proven to be true, in line with WP:VALID - otherwise, we could have biblical claims listed here. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You say the article is a duplicate of the Oldest people page, well it isn't, as the List of the verified oldest people page shows the 100 verified oldest people ever, as opposed to the 10 oldest verified people ever on the Oldest people page, so claiming that the content is a duplicate is completely false. Another reason for keeping this article is that it shows the 100 VERIFIED oldest people ever, if this list didn't exist, then unvalidated and potentially false claims could be included as part of the 100 oldest people ever. The content of the article is also in no way a duplicate of the Oldest living people page, as this page shows the 100 oldest people ever, as opposed to the oldest living people, there's a key difference there. -- Bodgey5 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These 3 pages and the Oldest people page have good information about the oldest people. The pages have mostly different information. Rpvt (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not duplicate the other articles, as they only show the oldest 10 living people, omitting a large number of notable people from the top 100.. Nom's argument that "verified" means "verified by the Gerontological Research Group" is irrelevant, as one can add other sources if desired; it just happens to be the case that the Gerontological Research Group is one of the most reliable sources in existence. Nominator's argument seems very weak; in fact this deserves a borderline WP:SNOW keep IMO. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 04:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oldest people provides an overview of the various lists that does not need to go into depth. The specific lists nominated are not merely duplicates as the user above has argued, and the List of the verified oldest men does not really duplicate much from the List of the verified oldest people anyway. In addition, I do not understand the argument about "verified" meaning "verified by the Gerontology Research Group"; the GRG is a reliable source, and "verified" does not preclude the inclusion of other reliable sources as well, so I do not see the problem here. Yiosie ²³⁵⁶ 05:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is a useful list for people who are interested in the subject. It is not a copy of the "Oldest People"-page since it lists the 100 (and not ten) oldest VERIFIED people ever. This list is something most people enjoy because it shows how long people can actually live. 930310 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - highly encyclopedic list —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very useful, very often used, exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is here for in my view. The argument that it is not acceptable due to the fact there is only one predominant source is a poor one. The GRG just happens to be the main source for these lists due to the fact it is the most trustworthy and the most reliable, the only source which actually fact checks and verifies the cases listed. So it makes sense that most reliable = most often used, but the nominator's argument suggests that most often used = not reliable? Completely illogical. JKSD93 (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking a lot like Christmas ...: For pity's sake, snippily suggesting that the article is suspect because the GRG is the source is like saying an article about soccer "verified" by FIFA is suspect. The GRG is the outfit generally held to be the worldwide authority in such matters. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I think it is important to teach the general public about the difference between longevity myths, longevity claims/claimants, and the VERIFIED oldest people, I would like to see this article be kept as it is. Showing that the world's oldest verified people ever were between the ages of 122 and 114, with the majority having died at 114 or 115, will hopefully teach the public that someone claiming to be 130 might not actually be the age (s)he is claiming to be. I do not see a problem in the fact that the GRG has verified the majority of the people on this list; it is not the fault of the GRG that other gerontology organisations such as the GWR or the IDL have not verified more living people - mind you, the GWR has ALSO, independently, verified all people attaining the world's oldest person status (see their website). Fiskje88 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Im sorry, but there is no way this is going to be deleted with the current consensus, a merger may be in order for some of the lists but this isn't the place for it. A trout may also be in order. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above. These articles contain useful information, and not duplicate of the other pages listed. A small overlap, but not duplicate. — AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 14:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 02:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Cock

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

This person's notability is very limited. Excluding the single-line mention at the GRG, there is a single article with substantial coverage of her (well her obituary). She may be the oldest person in Australian history which I think supports a redirect to List_of_Australian_supercentenarians#Australian_supercentenarians but not much else. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the article was originally about Christina Cock, an early (17th century) settler of New Sweden. A case could be made for an article about her, but not, I think for the article as it currently stands. I would probably move this information to the bottom of one of our many lists of dead old people rather than devote an article to her. - Nunh-huh 23:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supercentarian version was first created in December 2004 but deleted for being a copyright violation (to the same The Age article everyone keeps repeating again and again. Then the settler and the quote "hijacking" complaints (see Talk:Christina Cock as well). We may need to split the history here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History split requested. See also Talk:Christina Cock#Untitled and Talk:Christina Cock#Revision-history split requested. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, the closest parallel AFD I could find at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo from 2012 where being the oldest woman in Asia (and Australia is a part of Oceania in Wikipedia, not treated a separate continent) alone was insufficient and supported a merge to Japanese supercentanarians (which was never done and thus we're on the second nomination for that article). That's for those who prefer to review some history of these types of articles here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the oldest person ever from a country is an enduring, recurring citation, and she has received coverage in reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enduring in that someone else later could be older. It's enduring in that she was the lost person from that country at that time but is that really anything more than trivia? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Not only has she held this record for over 13 years, but even when someone does break her record, she will still remain as a "previous record holder". No, I would not say that being an all-time national record holder is a matter of trivia, especially as we're dealing with a reasonably large country (not like the Vatican city). -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the oldest person from a country of almost 24 million people (as of 2015), that is surely a notable achievement. She is also one of the 100 verified oldest people ever. As well as this, she has also been cited by various reliable soures. -- Bodgey5 (talk) 1:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

She's also number 77 on the all time list. Would all 100 be notable in your opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep, quite plainly. There are several sources I found which establish that this subject meets WP:GNG. [1][2][3] The first source, from Gerontology Research Group, has a entire three-paragraph section on her (certainly not a passing mention), while the second and third sources are about her exclusively, although the third one is a bit short. As Ollie mentioned above, being the all-time oldest person from a nation is quite a notable achievement. --Biblioworm (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that the first and third sources there are reliable sources. The second citation was already mentioned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GRG's reliability is only unclear to people ignorant of the gerontology field, which regards it as the standard for reliability. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a source about their longevity information doesn't stem to biographies that the GRG's website publishes (the GRG's reliability doesn't stem to everything they do). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Australian_supercentenarians. Full of OR and trivia, insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "Keep" claims here is justified under Wiki policy. This article (currently) fails WP:1E (no substantive content added in at least 3 years; WP:SIGCOV insufficient significant coverage in multiple independent sources; and if material that fails WP:TRIVIA and WP:OBIT were removed there would be even less content. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Australian supercentenarians. Sourcing is very thin here and there isn't enough material available to support a stand alone article. Additionally the sources provided aren't great. AniMate 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But the issue is that she already has an entry there, so why not just vote delete? --Biblioworm (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging and redirecting leave the history of this article intact and can potentially be useful for anyone editing the main list article. AniMate 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, since there is really nothing to merge, shouldn't you just vote redirect? I could possibly see that practicality of that. --Biblioworm (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't realize I'd have to be incredibly specific to make a routine AfD !vote understood. I thought experienced editors understood that the outcome of a merge almost always leaves behind a redirect. Since you apparently don't understand, I'll lay it out very simply and specifically. Merge any relevant information not already there to List of Australian supercentenarians. Leave a redirect behind. AniMate 18:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been editing wikis (not Wikipedia, necessarily), since early last year and I understand quite well what a merge is. I myself have occasionally voted merge in AfDs. What I'm saying is that since the information in List of Australian supercentenarians is in table form, there really is no relevant prose content to merge. Therefore, a redirect seems to make more sense than a merge, in my opinion, since there is nothing to merge; the table already contains all the information required of it. My intent was simply to point this out; not start a debate. --Biblioworm (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mrs. Cock is the oldest person ever from Australia and has been so for several years now, that itself is enough for this article about her to be kept. 930310 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could have read here, that Mrs. Cock is the oldest person in the history of Australia, whose age has been confirmed by scientific research. Australia is also a continent. Being the oldest person ever from a continent is definitely notable. White Eaglet (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — White Eaglet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Being the oldest ever of a country is notable. Plus this articles has been on wiki for 5 years. Are we suddenly going to raise questions to old articles? -- Petervermaelen (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that we might keep the oldest article on Wikipedia if it failed other tests (though it could well be moved). But for articles, age is not a criteria for "keep" rather for "why didn't it go sooner?" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This woman isn't the third, isn't the second, she is THE oldest person ever in the famous country of Australia. Her notability isn't limited, or you consider personally that a longevity recordholder isn't notable... that is not my mind. LC-Barti (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom mkes a fair point, that not a lot of information is included in this article; however, the subject matter is the oldest person who's ever lived in Australia. I think this is notable enough to warrant a keep. Besides which, it's not just a one line article, and contains some well-sourced information that would be lost in the event of a merge. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 17:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite difficulties with our coverage of people only notable for their age. Consider moving to Christine Cock All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Her name wasn't Christine. Why move it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* This person's notability is 'limited'? She is the oldest person ever in Australia, a country with over 23 million people. That is very notable, and I believe there is significant interest in people who hold these records. The page also contains a bit about her family and history. Anyone who is the oldest person ever in their respective country is notable and should be kept. Oscar248 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted, what to do with the new article Christina Cock (Swedish pioneer) which its hatlink points to? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move it here. There's no need for the hatlink or parenthical anymore. The joys that occur when this kind of chaos occurs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid chaos, WP:IAR and leave it as-is as long as the active WP:Proposed deletion template exists (or, if it is removed without the issues being addressed, don't move it for 24 hours to give the PRODder time to send it to AFD). Once it's clear it won't be deleted soon, then move it to Christina Cock. 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Information: I have added several possible references to the article's talk page at Talk:Christina Cock#Additional sources. The first 3 are celebrations of her 112th, 113th, and 114th birthdays. The 4th is a celebration of long life in general. Mrs. Cock gets a paragraph in that one. The 5th one is an extended obituary. The last one is the minutes of a local city-council (or equivalent) meeting in 2002, in which she, along with two other recently-deceased very old Austrialians, were called "true Australian icons". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Hollywood

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

Prod removed and question remains whether having a FANNY passes pornbio. Its a new award and doesnt have its own article so I'd say not significant enough to pass pornbio. Clearly fails gng otherwise - at least according to the nice mr google Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wonder if ST's using an IP to get his own way ? ... Well either way it's gonna get deleted!, As damn stunning as she is unfortunately looks count for nothing, can't find any evidence of notability so will have say delete per PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner of the award, meets of WP:PORNBIO/Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, notable because: 10x interwiki and very many nominations to awards. Also, good quality article, not stub. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 11:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff in a similar AfD for why the above user's argument to keep is wholly without merit. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Non-notable porn award, multiple noms fail WP:PORNBIO, so it wil lnot qualify on those grounds. Not able to evaluate the Men's Mag and "AIP Daily" at this time, will do so later. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claimed award fails the well-known/significant standard, and appears already to be defunct. Little independent reliable sourcing, not enough to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although sources were cited, consensus appears to be that they are not independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartBear Software

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

Blatantly an advert suitable for speedy deletion, though another editor has removed the speedy deletion template. This article is simply a list of SmartBear's questionably notable products. There's no reliable secondary news coverage about the company (DrDobbs seems to be a website that accepts 'articles' from its readers). It doesn't come even close to meeting WP:NCORP notability criteria for companies and organizations. Definitely time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and topic ban for nominator. The subject meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mind citing for us the sources you claim meet the GNG? Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article

From the wrb (you all did WP:BEFORE, right?

I find that most editors who discuss deletions look only at the article (look at UnitedStatesian's comment below) and do not search as is required. I did. I also read other sources that are not listed here, such as StickyMinds.com, that make a lot of hay about this subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources (press releases and DrDobbs) are not sufficient to demonstrate this company's notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - calling for a topic ban is well outside of the scope of an afd discussion. If an editor has a history of bad nominations and this has been discussed on his or her user talk page without resolution, an admin noticeboard would be the appropriate place to bring the behavioral issue.Dialectric (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The company is probably notable, but the notability depends on an award which may or may not be a notable award--very few of the products listed at Jolt Awards are notable, and the other references are mostly not third-party reliable sources. Although I do not always agree with him, at least 3/4 of Sionk's AfD nominations have ben deleted or redirected, and a good many of the kept or non-consensus ones ought to be renominated. I highly commend his efforts to remove promotionalism from WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm seeing a heap of press releases, broken links and casual mentions myself, and not a single qualifying source. Given that, suggesting a topic ban for the nominator is a display of bad faith. Even if the nom's made bad nominations before -- and I've no idea one way or another -- what exactly is the problem with him making a sound one, on which so far every editor save for Mr. Gorlitz agrees with him? Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as promotion/advert. Quis separabit? 17:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's definitely a real player in the software development industry and known and used by a lot of people. It needs improvement without doubt,but it can be fixed. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benicia High School

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

I'm not sure. -- Lhimec (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this school notable? I am not sure. The band participated in the Tournament of Roses Parade but I don't know what else about the school is newsworthy. -- Lhimec (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per long-term consensus as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), secondary school articles are typically retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with current pratice on this subject (why do we need an article on every single high school?), but consensus has determined that high school articles should be kept unless it cannot be proven that the school even exists, per the second bullet-point on WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It can rather plainly be shown that this school exists, so therefore it should be kept. --Biblioworm (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks, I didn't know about the consensus. How do we close the discussion? -- C (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lhimec: As there are no delete !votes you can withdraw it or alternatively let it run its course and someone will close when the seven days from the original nomination are up. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Per each and everyone above. Common outcomes has provided a consensus for these discussions. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver M. Gruber-Lavin Ochoa

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

Likely autobiography by an SPA, essentially a souped-up resume. Fails WP:NPOL if applied, and WP:BIO as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually suspect this person may be notable, if the statements in the article are in fact accurate. Sources may well be in German, and so not readily turn up in an English-language web search. However, the current article seems largely copied from the subject's online resume at http://gruber-lavin.autriche.or.at/en/vitae/cv/ and http://gruber-lavin.autriche.or.at/en/vitae/cv-ii/ and so i have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright infringment under WP:CSD#G12. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanka (musician)

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

Haven't found any reliable external references about him. If anyone can find something, please put it in the discussion below. Westroopnerd (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a musician that does not have enough significance to be it's own article. Nrwairport (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relatively well known dub producer. There are multiple websites that mention this artist, and a simple google search proves that. Examples here and here. The Undead Never Die(talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea whether those links are RS but I have taken the Speedy Deletion off as there is a chance that it might be notable. I'm not !voting Keep though. I have no idea about this stuff. I don't even know if "dub stepper" is the same as Dubstep. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are required fro established 3rd party media that provide in-depth coverage of the subject and that meet WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It also exists on the French, German and Haitian Creole Wikipedias. I have linked them although I am not sure their sources are much better than here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:BURDEN is to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG if they're "well known". Everything is relative, but maybe they're not relatively well known outside of the niche dub producing industry. In any regard they don't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO and if they do have an article on other Wikipedia projects, we don't self reference between Wikimedia projects (WP:OTHERCRAP). Mkdw ^talk 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the... Four albums instead of "two or more albums on (..) one of the more important indie labels". Well known in his genre, as depicted and cited in the article. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grueslayer, under what Wikipedia notability guideline are you recommending 'keep'? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I think people are trying to say is that the article does not indicate his notability by the use of significant coverage. Most of the sources are album track lists and do not discuss the artist at all. Mkdw ^talk 21:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NORUSH, We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea 1618

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

This article was declared unfit for Speedy Deletion, so I've decided to place it here. I've found very few external references to this company from searching, and this company seems generally non-notable. Westroopnerd (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. The nominator is racing around to disruptively place deletion tags on new articles that are clearly still being written, usually by experienced editors. The nominator's account is not even 24 hours hours old, and they immediately began new page patrolling, using tools which indicate they're an experienced editor. Something's way, way off here. And the creator of this article should be afforded a decent opportunity to finish writing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to have already started to troll my contributions, let me finish it for you. This is a completely legitimate alternate account under WP:CLEANSTART. On my previous account, I was a new page patroller. On this account, I am a new page patroller. Looks like someone forgot to assume good faith. Additionally, I've already requested you stop trolling my contributions and apologize for calling me a "blithering idiot and/or probable sock at work". Thank you. Westroopnerd (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: On the one hand, I'm not seeing sources. On the other, I've always found AfDing an article within minutes of its creation to be freaking obnoxious. If you want to be a NPP -- and I've been, in the past -- do it from the BACK of the list. No one gives out prizes on Wikipedia for the quickest you can AfD articles. Give them some damn time to write it, huh? Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I'm not happy about it. I really just don't see anything that constitutes a reliable source with significant coverage. Of the two given in the article, the second isn't reliable, and the first lacks sufficient bibliographic information for me to locate. With that said, tagging an article for CSD 1 minute after creation is bad form. And while not strictly germane to this AFD, I'm not entirely certain that the nominator's admitted pattern of focusing on NPP, swapping usernames, and returning to NPP is compliant with WP:CLEANSTART, which extols the new account to "avoid [previous] editing patterns" and to "edit in new areas". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close, I know this is English Wikipedia, but if it was Arabic wikipedia then a "CSD after 30 seconds of pressing the save key" would have resulted in a minimum of at least a week block. I can't even get the idea that "30 seconds" were enough to read the article and check the two Arabic sources and tag the article with a CSD tag; the two sources I provided were in Arabic. The document that dates to almost 100 year ago (part of Wikimedia Levant GLAM work), would take a native Arab at least a minute to read. I was amazed when I tried to save the next version of the article, as I got an editing conflict. But again, this is English Wikipedia. As so, I (now) do not feel like working on this article for the next month, cause I feel that such disruptive behavior should not be rewarded. I will just keep working on commons, wikisource, wikidata, wikinews, my home wiki (ar) and all the other projects that I have been working on for the last 13 years. I will come back again in a month to work on this article if it survives such attacks. (And yes, based on WP:COMPANY, I have to show the notability, but I was denied the chance to do so) --Tarawneh (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NORUSH -- We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way of the Dragon 2

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

Few reliable external references, looks like a generic Bruceploitation film with no particularly notable qualities. Westroopnerd (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I have some more time to expand the page? 19jduryea

If deleted, would you like it placed as a WP:DRAFT at User:19jduryea/workspace/Way of the Dragon 2 for you to work on until it is better cited to more clearly meet WP:NF? (hint: Check non-English sources) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reasoning may be correct but an AfD 4 minutes after creation is a bit quick.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll echo the problems with the nomination timing, especially as regards a pre-Internet era Hong Kong-produced film. Google reveals capsule reviews in several books. The international release schedule is ... interesting, and suggests the possibility of period Chinese or German material or more recent Dutch sources. I'm not saying this is ironclad at passing the notability standards, but there's reason to believe that WP:BEFORE could not have been adequately fulfilled in the 4 minutes that passed between article creation and nomination (and in the face of active editing during that time). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alts

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

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

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

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

Greece 1::(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Keep per a little WP:BEFORE shows this film as having multiple international releases and enough coverage in multiple languages to meet WP:NF, and being a Bruceploitation is not an automatic non-notability. Instead we look for sourcing, and finding we keep. While the article might be tagged for improvement, deletion of an improvable topic does not serve the project nor its readers. And I do agree with PRehse as sending this to deletion just four minutes after it was authored and while it was being actively edited seems just a bit hurried. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Invader Zim characters

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

There isn't any real world information to support notability. Just plot summaries. Fangusu (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator has an SPI against them going and no effort was made to improve the article or have a strong case for deletion; notable show with notable characters, and WP:SOFIXIT can clean up what seems to be sourced only to IMDb. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, standard coverage of characters for notable television series that should either exist in its parent article (which it doesn't at present) or remain standalone as a WP:SPLIT from that parent per WP:SIZE concerns. Either way, per WP:ATD this isn't a viable deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Please stop talking about my Sockpuppet Investigation. I am sorry about that misconduct. I don't think it is relevant to this AfD and, for another thing, I am not an evil person. Fangusu (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close While I hate fancruft as much as the next person, the well is poisoned. Filer has been site banned by the community.Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was text-merge and redirect as SwisterTwister suggested. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthways (scuba gear company)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable per wiki guidelines. Only one source mentions this company; and doesn't go into depth about them. The article itself is not written neutrally. Either delete it or merge what little information there is into another more pertinent article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the founder companies of sport scuba gear manufacture. It is noteworthy to scuba divers. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is a founding company, there needs to be more cause for notability than that. If it were one of the founding companies, you would think there would be extensive history over this. As it is, there is hardly any mention of this company. The Undead Never Die (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mention at Scuapro and redirect as my searches found nothing convincing and good aside from this and this. I would've been bold and mentioned it myself but I want to hear from others (Undead warrior your thoughts?) SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would work nicely actually. The Undead Never Die (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"For "Scuapro" read "Scubapro". And redirect to Johnson Outdoors#Healthways. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Firearms (video game). (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firearms: Source

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few mentions in RS is enough to redirect to List of Source engine mods or something else comparable. No significant coverage for its own article in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. – czar 18:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some mentions: [4][5][6] – czar 19:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass notability per WP:VG/RS. Can't seem to find any third party information regarding this on simple google searches; and not to mention that the article itself resembles a fansite. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Firearms (video game). Ana r chyte 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Fusion characters

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

This article is made up of only plot summaries. I don't see any real world information that sufficiently establishes notability. Fangusu (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No real reason presented for deletion or effort to fix the article issues, and nominator has an SPI against them currently. Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is huge, a proper look and merges might be needed not an all out deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Please stop talking about my Sockpuppet Investigation. I am sorry about that misconduct. I don't think it is relevant to this AfD and, for another thing, I am not an evil person. Fangusu (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? Sure it needs improvements but that does not mean it deserves deletion. Michael Demiurgos (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Merge Fairly substantial list with some references. I would have preferred if someone with more time cut it down to only the main characters and merge to the parent Digimon Fusion article, and leave a redirect. —Kirt^Message 06:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Merge would be probably WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Data Squad characters

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

This article is made up of only plot summaries. I don't see any real world information that sufficiently establishes notability. Fangusu (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: No actual reason presented why it has to be deleted aside of bias. It's not made up of plot summaries but summarizes the appearances of the neo-mythological figures presented in the series. (Most are missing some more info on them though.) If anything add a {{Refimprove}} note on top of the article... --Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No real reason presented for deletion or effort to fix the article issues, and nominator has an SPI against them currently. Nate • (chatter) 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the major characters summarized at Digimon Data Squad#Characters in addition to an oversized plot. Why do we need this list that the main article already summarizes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Feel free to nominate this again if closed due to the nom's SPI; my rationale is based on a string of WP:BADFAITH nominations for Digimon articles rather than one well-researched and presenting possible solutions. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research takes time though, years for some articles. If this is not deleted due to the SPI and WP:BADFAITH issues then I wont re-nominate this again for at least a week or so. I want to see someone who knows the series (because I don't) actually improve this list. Im not trying to sound harsh, I would love it if this article was improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Please stop talking about my Sockpuppet Investigation. I am sorry about that misconduct. I don't think it is relevant to this AfD and, for another thing, I am not an evil person. Fangusu (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said absolutely nothing about you being evil. However, having a history of socking and nominating a series of articles dealing with the same topic is not suggesting good faith to me, and if you bring a page to AfD you must exhaust all avenues of research on its notability, which I don't see within these nominations. Nate • (chatter) 04:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then: that whole section should be merged into List of Digimon Data Squad characters with the Digimon Data Squad#Characters-section being comprised of just the main characters and a link to the list via {{Main|...}}. --Fixuture (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is dreadfully underdeveloped and after a series of cuts by an admin, it would be better not to exist. —Kirt^Message 06:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Knowledgekid87's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is merely a list of names with no information offered. How do we even know which are the main characters in an article with no character information? Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's why it needs to be improved, not removed. Also edits such as this one here aren't helping with getting it to a state of being actually valuable and more than just a "list of names with no information offered". --Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is nothing stopping anyone from re-creating this list in the future, we already have the information duplicated elsewhere though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of secondary highways in Montana. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Secondary Highway 508

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

Seemingly non-notable road. Fails WP:NN in many regards. Westroopnerd (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of secondary highways in Montana. This is a valid topic for inclusion in the encyclopedia as part of a complete coverage of Montana's state highway system, but that doesn't mean it needs a separate article. Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Imzadi1979. –Fredddie ™ 11:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This can be covered in List of secondary highways in Montana. Dough4872 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01 characters

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

This article is made up of only plot summaries. I don't see any real world information that sufficiently establishes notability. Fangusu (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main characters are already summarized under Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01#Characters we also have a plot section visible. Character lists are best for articles with extensive media to them, and/or with proper coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be WP:TRIVIA and duplicative. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to close it, even if a few hours early, per WP:SNOW--there is no way this is going to be kept with such an obvious consensus that this an extremely non-neutral essay. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty against Husband in India

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

This seems to me to be a highly POV essay. It is not easy to read and seems to be a poor translation (probably of this) . I am not sure whether there is anything worth keeping in it but I feel it merits discussion, hence AfD and not just PROD. DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanielRigal, You pointed the right article from which it has been translated. Both are written by me. I am aware that there are translation issues. In fact, I have translated English to Telugu first (from the sources) and then I retranslated the Telugu Article to English. By going through the sources again (which, of course are in English), I may be able to fix up the poor translation in the article. I did not understand what PROD meant in your comment meant. Kindly clarify. Veera.sj (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By PROD, I meant the "proposed deletion" tag. That does not create a discussion page which is why I chose not to use it. I felt it likely that a discussion would be needed so I decided to start it instead of trying other things first. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically a POV fork of Domestic violence in India. It covers the same scope, but is exclusively from an MRA POV. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely an essay, and butts heads with WP:SYNTH as well. Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far from neutrality as to be unfixable. Looie496 (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nomination — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Willard A. Hanna. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bali Chronicles

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

Few reliable external references, generally fails to meet WP:NN. Westroopnerd (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was redirected to Willard A. Hanna by the article creator (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Obvious Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Colombia helicopter crash

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

Non notable military accident, with no content, WP:GNG etc. etc. Petebutt (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's significant in Colombia, the Minister of Defense was summoned to testify in a debate on the matter in the Congress [7], [8]. Other coverage of the accident: [9], [10] Vrac (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a stub of a notable topic. If you'd prefer more content add more or place a stub notice. The nom needs to provide more rationale than "Non notable military accident."--Oakshade (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I PRODded the article when it was basically a single sentence with a newswire report as its sole source, but Vrac's work to expand the article has demonstrated to me the notability of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sixteen dead in a single helicopter accident – whether civilian or military – is significant, unusual, and spectacular enough to merit an article. This is not a routine military or general aviation crash. Mdnavman (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable in Colombia SOXROX (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and an accident killing sixteen is obviously notable anyway in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable accident enough--Noel baran (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes Wide Open (2013 film)

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

Non-notable. No coverage at Google News or Google Books. No significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Doesn't meet any of the more specific criteria at WP:NOTFILM. No major awards, no indication of mainstream critical reviews. The only references are IMDb and a church newsletter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I could not find any coverage from independent RSsPincrete (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NFF. MarnetteD|Talk 21:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per suffering the same problems as do many (not all) short films... lack of coverage. If this film ever gains notability, the article can be WP:REFUNDED and sourced. Until then, nope. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Houghton (historian)

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

Article currently has 9 references. ~~#7, as far as I can see, does not mention the subject.~~ The others are links to library catalogs or a 1-paragraph mention in a local newspaper. There is one book review in a society newsletter (not a peer-reviewed journal, BTW), which is used to source the claim that "His research has been acknowledged by the Australian Forest History Society". While the reviewer is positive about the book, I gingerly suggest that this is perhaps not the same thing as a whole society "acknowledging" someone's "research". It is mentioned that Houghton has published 30 books, but "Most of his works have been self-published" (in fact, the only thing he didn't publish himself seems to be a history of the Geelong Historical Records Centre -itself with unclear notability- with which he apparently is involved himself. There was mention of an award in the article, but that was not a notable award and in any case has been removed because apparently this was a different person with the same name (Norm Houghton (pioneer irrigator), also with unclear notability). In short, there is no evidence that I can find that this article passes WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found him in source #7 (which isn't searchable), on page 5 under the heading "Light railways". Not a lot there. In my view the best source is actually source #3, which is an interview with Houghton conducted by the National Library. In fact I was leaning keep until I investigated a little further and discovered that it's part of a 93-interview series focusing on forest history - a worthy undertaking, I'm sure, but being one of 93 people interviewed by the NLA about this is not quite the same as being one of, say, ten. It appears that Houghton is a worthy researcher in this area, but the other sources, as mentioned in the nomination, don't quite get him over the notability threshold. Frickeg (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niche, personal interest historian of regional lumbering and lumber/industrial railroads. Negligible coverage of him or his books in secondary sources. Work in this sort of narrow-focus industrial history would e notable only if popular or scholarly sources widely picked up on and discussed the work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added more information about his work and influences, and a number of additional references, including newspaper accounts noting his role in documenting forest history, which, given the importance of forestry in Victoria's history, and the dearth of other research in this area, should be seen as an important contribution.Garyvines (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Garyvines is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

I respect your additions here, which improve the article. I was hoping the newspaper references would amount to more, but I don't consider two articles in local papers to be "significant coverage" (opinion may differ). Frickeg (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - there is no clear definition of what constitutes "Significant coverage" in Wikipedia. What I can find is that it "...addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The references to Houghton are not trivial, in that they are intended by their authors to demonstrate his important role in the research of forest history. The references are also in reliable secondary sources, even if some are local newspapers and no original research was necessary. Also the references by Evans and Davies, while I cannot determine if they are available on-line, provide a strong basis for the importance of the subject in this particular field. In terms of the number of sources, the newspapers might count as one, the multiple books by the author himself as one, the Light Railways Research Society and Forest History Society articles combined as one and the credit for providing base data and methodology for assessing forest industry site significance as another one. As their is implicitly stated that multiple' is not defined by any specific number of sources, I take these to surely constitutes multiple independent secondary sources. Suggestions above that industrial history is a narrow focus and personal interest area, would seem to be a personal opinion and a probable personal bias. Popularity as expressed in popular media and the internet should not be a criteria for notability, nor an argument for exclusion. There is nothing that says notability cannot including subjects of local value ( here for example). I note there is a fair bit of discussion on Wikipedia about this very thing - for example Wikipedia:One hundred words. One of the essays on the significant coverage topic compares the article Franklin Edgerton, which I take to suggest there is not a consensus on what significant coverage is, and that personal bias might be effecting deletion decisions. I also suggest that there is a special bias from the Afd proponent here - as they have had an interest in a disproportionate amount of the articles that I have started or substantially contributed to.Garyvines (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frickeg that the added references do not establish notability. As for the example for using local newspapers as sources that you cite, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument (and note that there are also references in national newspapers there and national awards). The Edgerton article is not well sourced (but his citation counts at GScholar probably make him meet [[WP:PROF]~#1), but again, that's just OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This discussion is about the Houghton article, not the others you mention. If those are also deficient, you're welcome to take them to AfD, too, but their existence is not a valid argument for keeping this one. --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RandyKitty seems to have it in for anything Garyvines wants to submit but I think there is some merit in the point being made in that I think a bit more work needs to be made to contextualise Houghton's work. But of course the field of Light Railways and Local History is not notably self reflexive so there are no ready made sources to refer to and of course the author has to avoid original research in Wikipedia. As someone who has a considerable respect for Houghton's research and the contribution he has made I feel that his work and contribution is notable but the difficulty is in demonstrating this within the guidelines. Is there some way of allowing Gvines and others to work further on the article to improve it and revisit the question in a few months? Iain Stuart (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My motivations, whether your accusation is correct or not (it's not my fault that Garyvines seems to concentrate on bordeline notable subjects, so, yes, there are probably more AfDs to come), are irrelevant here. The rest of your !vote is an eloquent argument for non-notability. The notability problems of the article were noted back in May. Despite several months have passed since then, nobody has been able to come up with any acceptable sources. I don't see any reason to drag this out any longer. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with Friceg, but his comment was before the last references were added. There are now 18 sources, including newspapers, academic and government publication, some very specific about the role of this author, but you seem to be taking an unnecessarily pedantic and hardline approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyvines (talk • contribs)

And my comment was made after those sources were added. After evaluating them, I maintain my pedantic and hardline position. --Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions Although my opinion has not been changed by the new sources, I did think it reasonable to add this to the history-related list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Putting aside the personal history between the nominator and author, a look at the sources suggests that to me that he passes WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Drover's Wife (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Apart from the irrelevant personal innuendo, could you perhaps explain to us exactly how this meets GNG? "It's notable" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning The repeated insinuations about my "personal history" with the article creator are becoming a bit tiresome. Yes, I have nominated articles created by this same editor before. I have nominated dozens or probably even hundreds of articles for deletion, in a large variety of subjects, so there is no reason to suggest some kind of vendetta here. Even if there was one, please note that in an AfD, only policy-based arguments about the notability of the subject of the article are important. This kind of arguing is counterproductive. All I am concerned about here is notability. Any further aspersions about my integrity will be reported at WP:ANI. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could offer the suggestion of a voluntary mutual interaction ban WP:IBAN. Garyvines (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason for that and this is not the place to discuss something like that anyway. Can we now please concentrate on the issue at hand? --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have had a look at the present references cited in the article (where i can) and although it is an interesting subject, trees and trains:), do not believe they quite attain notability. Here they are:

1. Carla Okai, 'Otways railways buff launches a new book', Colac Herald, Monday, June 20th, 2011 [11] - trivial review of one of his books - "His latest book covers the history of the Beech Forest to Crowes extension railway, which began in 1911."

2. "Houghton, Norm (1948-)", Trove, 2008, [12] - general listing of Australian library holdings not just of Norm Houghton

3. LRRSA Victorian timber tramways - select bibliography, Items on Victorian timber tramways published in Light Railways Nos 99 to 197 [13] - listing of journal articles including some by Norm Houghton

4. a b Houghton, Norm; Borschmann, Gregg (Interviewer) (1993), Norman Houghton interviewed by Gregg Borschmann in the People's forest oral history project [14] - library holding of sound recording and transcript of interview of Houghton

5. Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 49, June 2008 [15] - contains an article by Houghton and a non trivial review of one of his books Beech Forest, Capital on the Ridge. - "For people unfamiliar with Beech Forest and its vicinity, this text provides a good introduction to the locality, highlights the community's persistent difficulties in dealing with economic adjustments, and explains the actions taken to establish eco-tourism during recent years."

6. The Advocate, 'Wombat Forest features in new book' By Hannah Knight June 19, 2013 [16] - book review of The Wombat Woodsman - "The Wombat Woodsmen explores the history of sawmilling, explores how the politics of logging played out over the years and how the sawmills were arranged and worked."

7. Houghton, Norm; Geelong Historical Records Centre (1988), Geelong Historical Records Centre: a foundation history, Geelong Historical Records Centre - one of his books?

8. Light Railways Research Society, Books from other publishers [17] - lists 8 of his books for sale with brief description of each.

9. History News, Royal Historical Society of Victoria, Issue No. 279 Feb/March 2009 [18] - mention of 5 of his books received by this society.

10. Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter no. 20 November 1998 [19] - mentions a Light Railways issue with a Houghton article.

11. Review of Houghton's Sawdust and Steam by Rob Youl, Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 57, July 2011 [20] - something wrong with download.

12. Australian Forest History Society Inc. Newsletter No. 51, January 2009 p.4 [21] - contains article THE OTWAYS, RABBIT PROOF FENCES, COLAC SAWMILLS AND "FORESTRY" AT BEECH FOREST by Norm Houghton

13. A methodology to assess the heritage value of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Forest Management Area of Victoria, Peter Evans, Victoria. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1992 - not on net.

14. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission on sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Highland forests of Victoria, Peter Evans, Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1993 - not on net.

15. A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the west forest region Victoria / prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Environment Australia - not on net.

16. Colac-Beech Forest-Crowes Railway Conservation Management Plan, report to the Colac Otway Shire, June 2003 [22] - report prepared by Houghton.

17. Peter Davies 'A little world apart...': Domestic consumption at a Victorian forest sawmill, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 20,2002 pp58-66. - not on net.

18. 'The Geelong Club: A brief history of its early days' By Norman Houghton, LaTrobeana Journal of the C. J. La Trobe Society Inc. Vol 12, No 1, March 2013 ISSN 1447-4026 [23] - article by Houghton, the club historian.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult for people who may be regionally notable and/or with expertise in a niche subject to receive coverage that will lead to wikinotability (if only one of the Australian major dailies had reviewed any of his books then he might squeak over the line). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ten more references to the article after looking through my own library - all of which provide substantial acknowledgement of Houghton's contribution to forest history through important field work and research. I appreciate that these are not on-line, and may be difficult to access for wikipedian's not in Australia, or willing to leave their computers to look in real books, but I assure you they all say what they say and confirm Houghton's significant role in the discipline.Garyvines (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have left the comfort of the computer and ventured into the wilds of library land to check the non-online references. Unfortunately I didn't find all of them but found the following:

15. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission on sawmill and tramway sites in the Central Highland forests of Victoria, Peter Evans, Australian Heritage Commission, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1993 vols 1 to 3 - a report recommending a number of sites for the (Australian) Register of the National Estate. Houghton cited multiple times and mentioned specifically ie. "The data summarised on these maps is larely the result of over ten years of private reasearch carried out by Stamford, Stuckey, Maynard, McCarthy, Houghton and Evans of the Light Railway Research Society of Australia Inc." (p. 3), "Timber Mountain by N Houghton (LRRSA) covers these mills [Murrindindi/Yea/Healesville] in sufficient detail to enable assessment of significance to be made." (p.8) 4 of Houghton's publications listed in bibliography.

16. A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the west forest region Victoria / prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, Environment Australia - a report recommending a number of sites for the Register of the National Estate. Houghton is specifically mentioned in the Executive Summary of this publication (p.3) and is cited throughout. 6 of his publications appear in the bibliography, 5 published and 1 unpublished.

19. Tom Griffiths, Secrets of the forest: discovering history in Melbourne's Ash Range, Historic Places Branch, Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria and the Monash Public History Group, Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 1992 - not acknowledged, nor a listed contributor, nor directly cited. The Light Rail Research Society publication Tall Timber and Tramlines (see below) cited in chapter 4 of part 1 Timber Tramways Tall Trees.

20. Heather McRae, Forest history in Victoria: a guide to government records, 1836-1994, Historic Places Section, Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria, 1994 - amongst people aknowledged as part of Geelong Historical Records Centre (p. 71), not mentioned or cited elsewhere.

21. Francis Robert Moulds, The dynamic forest: a history of forestry and forest industries in Victoria, Richmond, Vic.: Lynedoch Publications, 1991 - Houghton is thanked by the author in the aknowledgements, as Executive Director of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, for assistance with manuscript preparation, thanked again in notes of chapter 3. The Sawmillers - "I am indebted to numerous publications of the Light Railway Research Society of Austrlia, Melbourne, including papers by N. Houghton, M. J. McCarthy, and E. Stuckey on the development of timber tramlines and sawmills, for the bulk of this chapter, N. Houton, Timber and Gold, 1980. Also State Forest Department Annual Reports for 1908 to 1919.

I also found the following:

Tall Timber and Tramlines: An Introduction to Victoria's Timber Tramway Era (cited in 19. above) by The Light Railway Research Society of Australia. Houghton appears in the bibiliography (further reading) for the chapter: The Forest Tramway and is also cited 5 times in the book.

A study of historic sawmill and tramway sites in the Gippsland forest region Victoria / prepared by Peter Evans for Environment Australia and Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria, 1998. - a report recommending a number of sites for the Register of the National Estate. - cited multiple times, 3 of Houghton's publications listed in Sources section.

From the above sources, I believe this article is now a Keep as Houghton meets WP:ANYBIO - "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." and WP:NACADEMICS "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.", that specific field/scholarly discipline being the history of tramways and sawmills in Western Victoria. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Coolabahapple: Thanks for this detailed research. It confirms what I suspected: the added references are just short citations of Houghton's publications, at best. I don't think this shows notability. In AfDs of academic bios, we usually require hundreds of such citations to meet PROF#1 or ANYBIO2. We're very far from that here. Yes, he's cited (it would be absolutely weird if he'd never been cited), but by far not enough to be notable. --Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So how many do you want? Given the topic is a regional one (albeit a large region covering most of the forested area of Australia comprising 149 million hectares of forest, more than the area of most European countries) the citations are similarly in regional publications. Forest history is not a niche or personal interest topic in Australia, it is critical to the history and economics of white settlement and continues to be one of the major environmental challenges in Australia. Australia is internationally known for the ferocity and devastating effect of its bushfires. Houghton's contribution to this topic as a provider of base data on the nineteenth century exploitation of these forests is by far the major research on the topic. I suggest that the difficulty of some in appreciating the notability is due to a regional bias that can't see Australian subjects as having value on a world context, and won't accept a regional context as valid in its own parameters.Garyvines (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- sources and positions are a bit on the weak side for GNG, but there are a number of small citations. On balance, it's a well-written article with many sources; applying the "First Do No Harm" standard seems to me the best choice is to keep a good article on a marginally notable subject. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is, the article only seems to be well-sourced. None of the sources is an in depth discussion of either Houghton or his work. A smattering of citations in a couple of books really is not enough to meet PROF#1. Looking at GScholar (link above, remove the dab from the query) is rather revealing. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lydic

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. The one source provided admittedly is decent, but both are local news stories rather than national ones that might've helped with GNG. Wizardman 15:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable.--Yankees10 17:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Toles

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

Non-notable former minor league ballplayer. There's a couple small sources about his release, but that's it. Wizardman 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 06:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing about him reaches the level of coverage required for minor league baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon Adventure characters

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

This page consists of plot summary only. There isn't any real world information to establish notability. Fangusu (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Did you cross check the sources used in the article? I see some notable sources in the form of books and the like. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No real reason presented for deletion or effort to fix the article issues, and nominator has an SPI against them currently. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI in some cases doesn't effect the outcome of an AfD, in this case though I see no indication that the nominator checked the references present in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Please stop talking about my Sockpuppet Investigation. I am sorry about that misconduct. I don't think it is relevant to this AfD and, for another thing, I am not an evil person. Fangusu (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the other Digimon character lists were deleted or merged, it would be fairly pointless to argue notability of the of the series' base Digimon Adventure characters. Glancing, there are over 100+ sources which seem fairly reliable. —Kirt^Message 06:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as properly sourced. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument regarding the sourcing added not meeting Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is persuasive, and hence the consensus of established Wikipedia editors providing policy-based rationales supports the deletion of this article. Daniel (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oladeji A. Olanrewaju

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local government chairman are generally not considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government Chairman (or woman) are just like County Executives here in the US and the Leader of the County Council in the UK. I do not see County Executive and Leader of the County Council pages of being tagged for deletion. The County Board of Legislators here in the US is very similar to the Local Government Council, the elected Legislators represent a district, while elected Members represent a ward and are in charge of a field (ex. Environment, Finance and Supplies, Estate & Valuation, Youths & Sports). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If Wikipedia is to believed, Local government areas of Nigeria states that there are 774 local government areas. Per County executive, it appears as though there are fewer county executive chairmen or leaders in the United States than in Nigeria. If you follow the trail of links, it does appear that there are articles for people on various county boards for the more populated areas (e.g. Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Government of Sacramento County, California, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors). - Location (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even in the United States and the United Kingdom county councillors don't get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist. Local government officials can get into Wikipedia if they can be reliably sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but they do not get an automatic right to keep a Wikipedia article that's written this poorly and/or rests entirely on primary sources as this does. WP:NPOL explicitly limits the notability of local political figures to those who can be well-sourced to reliable source coverage, and does not grant automatic inclusion rights to all members of any county or municipal government just because it's possible to verify that they exist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly to substantive coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can You please inform me of any deleted County Executive Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many, trust me. I'm not going to spend my time hunting down every past example for you, but for one very recent example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Saul. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I went into this AfD thinking delete per User:Bearcat's reasoning, but then I saw he is chief executive of a city of 1.2 million people. That would definitely qualify for notability in a Western country, so it also should in Nigeria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not without reliable source coverage to support it, it wouldn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The state website is a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about in the case of Oladeji A. Olanrewaju, think of him as the Mayor of a city of over a million people. Also, both Fairfax County, Virginia and Dublin (used in the example of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Saul), used in previous arguments, have populations that are less (in Dublin's case it's population less than half of Ogbomosho's) than Ogbomosho's.

As well, in Dublin the equivalent of The LG Chairman is the Lord Mayor Críona Ní Dhálaigh who does have page, as well as 9/10 of Supervisors on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Doesn't matter how big a place is or isn't. He still doesn't get an inclusion freebie just for existing, if the article isn't citing any reliable source coverage to earn him inclusion — the mayor of a town of ten can get into Wikipedia if good enough coverage is there, and the mayor of a city with a population of a million can fail to get into Wikipedia if the coverage isn't there. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have put the sources, though when has a mayor of a city with a population of a million can failed to get into Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When they weren't properly sourced. Which this still isn't, because nothing you added just now counts as any sort of reliable source. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you claiming are not reliable? The state sources are clearly reliable and they indicate he holds the position claimed. Do you really expect an African official to be as heavily covered online as one in the United States? It is utter nonsense to claim that the mayor of a city of 1.2 million people in a Western country would not be considered to be notable by Wikipedia standards, whether you fall back on WP:GNG or not. He would be considered to have inherent notability, discounting any laughable claims that there is no such thing on Wikipedia (since there clearly is and always has been). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notability has nothing to do with population size in this case. Agege and Alimosho with size of 1,033,064 and 2,047,026 respectively are local government area in Lagos State. Does these population sizes makes the local government chairmen automatically notable? Local government chairmen are generally considered non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN but may be notable if they meet WP:GNG, which the subject of this article fails. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got a bit of systemic bias here. Any of us who've been around for any length of time will know that whatever the guidelines say there most certainly is a presumption of inherent notability for the chief executive of a city of that size in a Western country. For God's sake, even ordinary councillors of cities of that size have presumed notability, let alone the council head. And please let's not have any guff about "rules": we all know it's the de facto truth. Try to delete an article about a city councillor in an American city of that size, even one who was around long before the internet and therefore doesn't have much sourcing, and see what response you get! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any bias arguments here. I think WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN are clear enough and editors need not be reminded that other stuff exists is usually not a valid argument to keep an article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You can't see any systemic bias? Well, I'll leave it there then. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no — a chief executive of a city of that size in a Western country doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie that's parked entirely on primary sourced verification of their existence. If no indication of adequate reliable source coverage can be located, then they do get deleted. (Just as an example, even some of the largest cities in the United Kingdom fail to get their mayors over WP:NPOL, because their mayoralty is a ceremonial post that rotates annually in an "every city councillor gets a turn" sort of way — the Directly elected mayors in England and Wales are the only ones who get an automatic presumption of "because mayor" notability, while any other mayor in either country gets an article only if they can be immediately sourced over WP:GNG as an individual. The list of British cities whose mayors do not get an automatic notability freebie just for being mayors even includes Manchester and Birmingham. You may think that mayors of cities of this size always get an automatic presumption of notability and never get deleted — but that's not, in fact, true. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key Word: Ceremonial. Key Phrase: A ceremonial post that rotates annually in an "every city councillor gets a turn" sort of way. Oladeji A. Olanrewaju's Post is neither of these, he is elected leader of a city of 1.2 million people, more than both Manchester and Birmingham proper, and that is not even including the people in other areas of the LGA. To add to that before you go saying that the mayors of the cities of Birmingham and Manchester do not have pages, the equivalent of the LG Chairmen in both cities do have a page.

The state sources as well as an independent news reference were put into the page, How are they not reliable sources. Also, Bearcat remember Wikipedia's 2nd Pillar.Aelimian21 (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's second pillar is not a thing I've failed to take into account; it's exactly what I am pointing out. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How?? Your arguments have shown extreme bias. Aelimian21 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Aelimian21 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comments most certainly have not shown any "bias" whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure???Aelimian21 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What ever helps you sleep at night. Aelimian21 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Reliable sourcing is media coverage of the subject in newspapers, magazines, books, radio or television — it is not the mere existence of his name in a directory of officeholders on the government's own website, or a press release on the website of the First Lady, or a post to a user-generated football fan forum, or an unreliable blog. But every single source that's been added here so far is one of those four ineligible types of sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The state website is obviously a very reliable source, and which source is the blog???????¿? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana MMA is a blog, and the state's own website is a primary source that cannot confer notability on a person just because their name happens to appear on it. A person cannot get over our inclusion rules just by happening to have a profile on the website of an organization that they're directly affiliated with, because if they could then anybody on earth could game our rules by sticking a self-penned public relations bio on a Tumblr — reliable sourcing is newspaper, magazine, book, radio or television coverage, not "has a profile on their own employer's own website or a listing in a directory". Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not your inclusion rules, set aside your Administrator status (which is very good for you), you are just another Wikipedian, as am I, I have just as much of a say as you do whether I am a 12-year old from New York or a 49-year old from Oklahoma. Aelimian21 (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim they were "my" inclusion rules. They're Wikipedia's inclusion rules, not my own personal ones, and nobody — not me, not you, not nobody nowhere never — gets to claim any entitlement to any special exemption from them. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Ghana MMA is not a blog, and I repeat not a blog. 2nd, I put another independent news reference into the page, and Third, to quote Necrothesp, The state sources are clearly reliable and they indicate he holds the position claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and don't you dare say The Nation is a blog Aelimian21 (talk) 01

18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The article did not contain a citation to The Nation at the time I posted that comment. But there is still a problem with the citation to The Nation that's been added: it doesn't link to any article about this person in that newspaper, but just lands at the front splash page of the entire website. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're getting confused here about what "reliable sources" means. The state website is clearly a reliable source. It's not "significant coverage" under WP:GNG, what is what you're getting at, but it is certainly a reliable source. There's a difference between reliable sourcing and significant coverage. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources, it's true, but official websites and press releases are, whether they're just directories or not. Does he have "significant coverage"? No, he doesn't. However, I've addressed this above. He comes from Nigeria, not a country with great internet coverage. We have to assess whether an official of a similar level in the West would be considered eligible for an article. The answer is quite clearly, yes, without a doubt. Sometimes we have to use common sense instead of resorting to dogma and spouting "the rules". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not getting confused about anything. The part you left out of that summary is that reliable sourcing also has to be independent of the subject — what a person says about themselves in a public relations profile on an affiliated source can be self-serving, puffed up, distorted and/or not entirely accurate in any number of ways (which is precisely why we can't, for just one example, keep an article about a television journalist that's sourced only to their staff profile on the website of their own television station.) And Nigeria may not have the greatest web presence in the world, but it most certainly does still have newspapers and television and radio stations and other media that count as reliable sourcing — nothing in Wikipedia's rules requires our sources to be web-accessible. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really is tiresome to continually have to explain to editors, especially experienced ones, that official sites are considered to be reliable sources. Nowhere does it say they're not. They are not self-published sites. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even fractionally as tiresome as it is to continually have to explain to editors that official sites cannot confer notability in and of themselves, if the rest of the sourcing around them is inadequate. The fact of having an official website, or being listed on the official website of a directly-related organization, does not constitute a "get out of actual media coverage free" pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's not the mayor of Ogbomosho, he's a local official who heads only the northern half of it. That's fairly low level, and less than a million inhabitants. Freebies here only for Oyo State legislators and governors, and assorted statewide officials. The Fairfax County supervisors should be nominated for deletion. The Dublin mayor is notable because it's the capital city of a sovereign country of some size. Refs in the article are routine trivial mentions, there's not a single in-depth source to get some info on this person. Article is actually a WP:COATRACK for a list of non-notable names. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LG Chairman is the highest ranking official of Ogbomosho, due to the fact that Ogbomosho South is just made up of the southern suburbs of Ogbomosho. Also, Ogbomosho does not have a Mayor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kraxler, if you actually read the articles you'd see that the city of Ogbomosho is almost entirely within the district of Ogbomosho North. Ogbomosho South is mostly rural; it's just named after the neighbouring city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any difference, it's far too low-level for inherent notability. Besides, it would need an editorial judgment (guessing) as to what it the actual size of his bailiwick and the duties the office carries. We can't do that here, we need to follow the notability guidelines. Inherent notability starts at State level, and is occasionally extended to well known very large, or countries' capital, cities' mayors and councillors. The subject of this article needs "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject" to pass GNG, and here there's none. Kraxler (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The LGA is the 3rd tier of government in Nigeria, which is in no way low-level. Aelimian21 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's too low, under our guidelines. Period. Guidelines were established to serve a purpose. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Counties of the USA are the third tier yet many heads of these county have pages, such as Joanie Mahoney and Steve Schuh. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Nominate Mahoney for deletion, and see what happens. Schuh is a former State legislator, and thus passes the guideline. Kraxler (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under your logic, exhibited in previous comments, both Joanie Mahoney and Steve Schuh's pages should be deleted. Aelimian21 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I suggest you read again " Schuh is a former State legislator, and thus passes the guideline." and try to understand that. (Well. it means that there's no way to delete Schuh's article, but it has nothing to do with his current position as County executive.) Kraxler (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are the one not reading as you are avoiding the facts that from what you stated before Joanie Mahoney's page and countless other pages such as Bernard Caprasse and Cathy Berx should be deleted. Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21.

I don't know where you got that notion. Caprasse and Berx are provincial governors. Do you claim that Olanrewaju is the Governor of Oyo State? Kraxler (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provinces are below Regions and the Central Government, therefore they are third tier, and you have continuously stated that "Third Tier Government is not notable". Aelimian21 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has a different administrative structure, the second tier is split between the regions, the communities and the provinces, all of which have a different set of duties. Historically, the regions were created only in the 1980s as an intermediate level (similar to one and a half) while the national government is first tier and the provinces second tier. There is absolutely no doubt that Olanrewaju's office is far below State level. If there were regions in Nigeria, then he would be fourth tier. Kraxler (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3 of the Belgian Constitution divides Belgium into three regions: the Flemish Region, the Walloon Region and the Brussels Region. Below the Regions are the Provinces. Also, I would advise you to read about the Nigerian System, Olanrewaju's office is not, and has never been is "far below State Level". Plus there are no regions in Nigeria, therefore he isn't fourth tier. That is just common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was fourth tier, it was a ~hypothetical comparison with the Belgian system. But I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF again, this is Nigeria not Belgium. Kraxler (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, you clearly stated that the LGA is fourth tier, and are you actually saying that Caprasse and Berx are notable because they are Belgian, and due to Olanrewaju nationality he is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask your English teacher what "If there were regions in Nigeria, then he would be fourth tier." means. Kraxler (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read about the Nigerian System because there are no regions in Nigeria, therefore he isn't fourth tier. Aelimian21 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you still haven't answered my question, Are you saying that Caprasse and Berx are notable because they are Belgian, and due to Olanrewaju nationality he is not notable?Aelimian21 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Nationality has nothing to do with notability. You didn't ask your English teacher, so there's no reason to rehash the 4th-tier issue. And, Olanrewaju is not notable because there's not a single source with info on his person. All we know is that he is some local officeholder. Nothing else. thus he fails WP:GNG. Please read the guideline. Kraxler (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to ask your English Teacher how to read, THERE ARE NO REGIONS IN

Nigeria, THEREFORE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA IS NOT FOURTH TIER. Also, ask your English Teacher what words not to start a sentence with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask what words not to start a sentence with, which seems to be a ver interesting subject to talk about. A suggestion I'd like to thank you for. Kraxler (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The chief executive of a city of over a million people is "far too low-level for inherent notability"? Now you're just being silly. "Guidelines were established to serve a purpose." You do realise they're called guidelines? Not rules? They're modified by consensus, which is established, among other places, at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"chief executive of a city of over a million people" is pure guesswork. It's nowhere described as that, neither the size nor the duties of office. Guidelines are not modified at AfD, they are modified by consensus at the guideline (talk) page; at AfD consensus is established concerning the subject of an article. And yes, guidelines should guide, not be treated with contempt. Kraxler (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local low level politician. He's not the mayor, as Kraxler pointed out above. There is no significant 3rd party coverage of this person anywhere. And I also agree about this article being a coatrack. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this city there is no mayor and the LGA is the 3rd tier of government in Nigeria, which is in no way low-level. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe there should be in-depth coverage for a stand-alone article and there does not appear to be any. I have no objection to redirecting to Ogbomosho North. - Location (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. after relisting 3 times Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kanem-Bornu Empire

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

These articles are redundant forking, or possibly a PoV fork due to conflicting ethnic and historical viewpoints, with multiple different articles for the same state. I would prefer that the Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire would be deleted, or merged with Kanem-Bornu Empire. Depending on the consensus however, the Kanem-Bornu Empire may have to go instead. I would be willing to rewrite the article(s) about this African country, but the fork(s) have to go first. Chronology of the Sefuwa (Kanem-Bornu) is another fork that has to go for sure, as Sayfawa dynasty already exists with the exactly same content. Ceosad (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge -- Kanem-Bornu Empire and Chronology of the Sefuwa (Kanem-Bornu) These articles seem to be essentially redundant, being appropriately covered by Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire. Bornu seems to be part of the slightly earlier Karem, but rather smaller. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue here is that both the Kanem Empire and the Bornu Empire coexisted during Scramble for Africa for about something like six or seven years according to these articles, so keeping them separate might be justified, as you suggest. However, for most of their history, they were the same state ruled by the Kanuri Sayfawa dynasty originally from Kanem, that just lost and regained their territories across the centuries. (Kanem was invaded, and inhabited, by the Toubou.) Kanem-Bornu is an artificial name invented by historians. I would rather compare Kanem-Bornu to Mughal Empire, that lost its homeland in Fergana, than to Byzantine Empire. We do not need separate articles for "early East Roman Empire" and "late Byzantine Empire". (There is one article for Nicaean Empire thought.) This is why I would prefer to keep Kanem-Bornu Empire, and delete the Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire. Keeping Kanem Empire and Bornu Empire separate might help avoid some horrible future fork for a post-1388 Toubou ruled Kanem state though, as it can be argued that there were multiple different states with the name of Kanem Empire... The map you referred to was Kanem-Bornu Empire before Toubou invasion in 1370s. There is a third (and a horribly bad) way out of this: Keeping articles for both Kanem-Bornu Empire and Kanem Empire, but deleting Bornu Empire. This is a quite a complex problem here with the forks... Ceosad (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem different enough. Steel Wool Killer / Lanolжeð Renforsdfer Tyklovon (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davindra Singh

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

Promotional and non notable. Running a walk-in clinic is not a notable innovation, and there is nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Intended or not, the article reads more like a personal page and all my searches found nothing better than this (nothing at all significant and suggesting better improvement). SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- 009o9 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Precious Metals

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

Completing a GF AfD nomination on behalf of a new editor, ChiefSweetums. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was written before the restrictions changed. The article contains BBB references and press releases that are no longer acceptable. It's confusing to writers trying to write new articles, because when they try to follow the format, similar references are rejected for not being notable. This article isn't noteworthy and doesn't have credible, third party references. ChiefSweetums (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"before the restrictions changed" Which restrictions?

There is no "restriction" on using BBB or press releases as references, or any non-RS in general. They may not be adequate on their own, but that's a separate issue. Nor, in this case, are they on their own.

If there's a claim in this article that you see as unsupported by the necessary level of RS, then by all means query that claim and tag it as such, but that's no reason to seek deletion of the entire article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, ChiefSweetums came into IRC asking about their draft, and used TPM as an example of a similar article. We mentioned that the TPM page was created before AfC existed. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac - huh? AfC has been around for 10 years, and the article was created less than 2 years ago? - Happysailor ^(Talk) 09:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happysailor, in looking over my logs, the start of AfC was never explicitly mentioned, just a general statement that the criteria have changed over the years. Primefac (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac - np, your statement above - 'We mentioned that the TPM page was created before AfC existed - threw me a loop, that's all. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A business over a hundred years old, claimed as one of the largest US companies in its notable field. I see no reason to question the veracity of this, no part of the article seems overblown, and the basic topic is notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned about the neutrality of this AfD nomination, given that the nominator's main efforts so far have been on a competitor's article at Draft:Capital Gold Group, Inc., so far rejected for creation. Other uninvolved editors might wish to consider a speedy close of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Age does not confer notability, and large organizations are not inherently notable. What is at issue is not the nominator's motives, but whether Texas Precious Metals has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company. Worldbruce (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Wow! How did I never notice all those rules before?!?!

Also, see the 19 references that are already on this article and have been there for some time. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those 19, some are just fact checking (like the patent office), and some are self-published or Press releasses. I think it might be just about notable after going through the refs, but there was some hyperbole and padding in the refs (it was 29 until I went through them) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 09:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Padding" doesn't dilute notability though. If there's a handful in there that convey notability, then notability is conveyed. The rest is copy-editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion was proposed from a disgruntled industry competitor who was trying to get their non-notable company Draft:Capital Gold Group, Inc. a Wikipedia page, got rejected because they weren't notable and then lashed out at Texas Precious Metals in frustration. Shinerite (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinerite, unless you know that for a fact, then you should probably assume good faith and assume that they're just trying to follow Wikipedia policy. Do they have a COI? Sure. Was it malicious? Maybe. But that shouldn't affect the discussion, especially since it's been largely neutral so far. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we'll keep it neutral. The nominator with COI has since deleted his short-lived account and stayed out of this discussion.Shinerite (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we removed all the primary sources, as we should, there would be no article left. No objection to someone re-starting it with secondary sources, but out of the current article there is not enough material worth keeping to overcome TNT. CorporateM (Talk) 02:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CorporateM, I respectfully disagree: There are secondary sources from USA Today, Inc 500, Marketwatch and Zerohedge. Marketwatch and Zerohedge are two of the largest news names in the investment world. There is another reference where Texas Precious Metals was the printed cover story for Shale magazine, the leading energy industry publication in the nation. Thanks to HappySailor's recent review and edits, there was a cleansing of sources (from 29 to 18 and then a few more were added/tweaked) and what is left looks pretty solid. There is substantial coverage from multiple, reliable, independent national (not even regional or local which are also acceptable) secondary sources. That clearly exceeds the definition of notable for companies outlined by WP:COMPANY.Shinerite (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - extent of coverage in USA Today and Shale magazine seems sufficient to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because although my searches found nothing better than this, the current sources deemed acceptable enough for now. What I find interesting is that my searches including Newspapers Archive found nothing. I'm from Texas but not this area so I've never heard of this. SwisterTwister talk 17:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice as to re-creation more information from reliable sources is found. I can userfy on request. Jujutacular (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Media Technologies

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

Only coverage is from prnewswire and primary sources, no significant coverage from reliable, secondary sources. No potential redirect targets. – czar 02:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best case scenario this is WP:TNT Sulfurboy (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does http://javascriptweekly.com/issues/93 coverage of the cringely article qualify as a secondary source? The unique javascript video implementation and the long history in the music industry are the two main notable aspects so I'll continue to source references on those points. Yes I acknowledge I'm an employee and it's a company article but am committed to improving - it's similar in content and structure to numerous pages from competitors and similar companies. Rick.ramsay (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reputation for fact-checking or reliability at that JavaScript newsletter site. Editors with actual conflicts of interest are usually advised to propose edits to the article from another page rather than editing the article directly themselves. – czar 18:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment additional secondary sources for consideration for notability and future editors:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=rMh6fcsRx1sC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=destiny+media+player+review+1999&source=bl&ots=3n2_ux3yPi&sig=KcnOu2vevIENZvp4FB9_o1kqFR4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBWoVChMIhpaSzbGlxwIVCTmICh0CSgj1#v=onepage&q=destiny%20media%20player%20review%201999&f=false

http://radio.about.com/cs/pirateradio/gr/pirateradio.htm

https://www.biv.com/article/2011/9/no-flash-in-the-pan/

https://www.biv.com/article/2011/6/destiny-media-settles-multi-year-court-battle/

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/The-List-of-the-100-Companies-that-Matter-Most-in-Online-Video-in-2014-99684.aspx

Rick.ramsay (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like small blurbs in the national coverage and the biv is local coverage – czar 17:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft & userfy (if needed) as my searches found nothing convincing and good [Destiny Media Technologies here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional references to the play MPE technology has used within the modern radio industry:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/country/6648355/kelsea-ballerini-dibs

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/country/6663192/waterloo-revival-gets-a-good-workout-with-bad-for-you

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/country/6633599/country-singer-cam-dreams-up-a-smoldering-ballad-with-burning-house

There's a regular stream of these from prominent artists that helps establish the notability of the product - see https://www.google.ca/search?q=play+mpe&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1586&bih=875&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI3e_7vuW6xwIVCZWICh18Jgr0) Rick.ramsay (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the use of "Play MPE" in those citations as passing mentions. The articles have nothing to do with the product/service and everything to do with individual artists. Coverage should be about the subject in question. – czar 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree they don't qualify as sources but do help establish the relevance of the product described within the music industry so may be useful in assessing notability. Rick.ramsay (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ognian Gueorguiev

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. He is not mentioned in another article so as to warrant a redirect. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. highbeam, Jstor, scholar, news and newspapers resulted in zero hits. A google books search resulted in this single hit, which is a mirror of the Wikipedia page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having significant, reliable, independent coverage in sources (that I can find). There are a bunch of hits from list/tables and non-independent venues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bauer

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

Non-notable artist lacking non-trivial support. References are minor single line listings. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual. reddogsix (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Current references show no support for WP:GNG since there is not substantial coverage. A google news search (confined to Bauers in Wisconsin), did not turn up any substantial coverage. Unfortunately, this is a relatively common name, so general searches in the news and on the web produced hundreds of hits, but I could find nothing to support this subject's notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any third party mentions for this person to assert notability. The Undead Never Die (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taratari shipyard

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

Alleged to be a csd article, however its been here a while and there is enough information that alternative measures could be entertained here. We'll let the community decide this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only source cited in the article that might be independent is the profile in Lepetitjournal.com. Everything else is clearly the organization and its partners talking about the organization. An argument could be made that the existing article is fundamentally promotional and WP:TNT is necessary. However, some of the organization's projects have been noted in these independent, reliable sources:

"Fisheries and aquaculture emergency response guidance" (PDF). FAO. 16 March 2012.
"Kuakata boat has historical value". The Daily Star. 1 August 2012.
"Jute shows new prospect". The Daily Star. 9 February 2013.
"A question of will". Dhaka Courier. 5 March 2015.
"Port-Musée. Le Bateau Lune, nouvelle étoile". Le Télégramme (in French). 19 May 2015.
"Le Bateau Lune ou la reconstruction d'un bateau traditionnel du Bangladeh". Bateaux.com (in French). 6 June 2015.

Someone willing to start over could craft an acceptable article with a combination of these and small bits of the non-independent sources. Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article in bad shape but looks notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some major work done to it, but the sources don't lie. It's a notable place. The Undead Never Die (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sun deck

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

Does not assert notability or significance. Article is unsourced. From a search, most sources about the topic are dictionary sources, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 06:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a dicdef. Maybe a soft redirect to wikt:sundeck? shoy (reactions) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to either Ship or Ferry or both? –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would've been nice if someone pinged me but there we go!, Well seeing as we already have Sundeck may aswell delete this (and perhaps redirect ?). –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate sundeck already redirects to Deck_(ship), do the same for this.--Savonneux (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a duplicate of sundeck and it's also a dicdef. Delete this one and have it redirect Deck_(ship). The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Hughes

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial support. References are generally passing mentions. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe Hughes qualifies as a notable actor. She was the lead in V/H/S/2, which was a very profitable and known film in the horror genre. The franchise is relatively young and already has three installments. It went to Sundance. She's had roles in many of Adam Wingard's movies (even the title role in the case of the Laura Panic films). Her other features had festival play, which I cited as well.

There are multiple citations specifically about her and/or interviewing her. They are from notable sources. There are several citations that only have a sentence or two about her, however I would rather over-cite the entry than not provide enough information.

I also took into consideration the individual's tech background when considering notability. Hughes was a publicly known Apple employee, which was even more rare at the time than it is now. The tour guide videos were highly visible. Her video production work at Apple as well as the other infamous companies lends to her notability. Allison419 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per nominator, my sweeps only found a few mentions. What we really need is a few in-depth secondary sources which focus on her as an actress. Not sure about the Apple stuff. My suggestion is for the article creator to trim all the crufty sources out, as per WP:RS and show a few good references, and I might change my view, otherwise I think it is WP:TOOSOON.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like that this article is well sourced, even if the source isn't immediately about the subject. Maybe there's a guideline saying that should be cleaned up, but I don't think it's grounds for deletion. More importantly, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page specifies the top consideration being a person with a interesting or unusual story. Apple's a very closed secret company, and one of their public figures at the time was getting naked in huge horror movies. How weird is that?? The iPod shuffle girl is the VHS girl, that's unique. N.brand221 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)— N.brand221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is hardly well sourced. Much in the same way notability is not inherited, unrelated "references" do not support the subject. Apple is hardly a closed company and there is nothing unique about being naked in a movie, horror or not. Or for that matter and combination of the two. reddogsix (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I was happy to find hannah has an entry. I was going to make it. I'm trying to get pages up to date on Adam Wingard for the WP:HORROR after everyone in his films gained notoriety a few years ago. There were actually a lot of great details on this page I didn't know about. I had no idea about the apple videos. Civicoblivion (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons for keeping?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was originally listed for notability but I don't think that's a concern. I won't repeat all the points previously made on that, but I agree she's a notable actor. My point was that it is a quality entry that adds to Wikipedia, especially in the WP horror area where quality entries are needed. It looks like it's properly sourced, and if there's some debate about it having too many sources or that the quality of several of the sources don't merit their inclusion that's a great reason to keep it and clean it up. It includes well-rounded information, it's well-written and maintains a neutral POV. I don't see a reason not to keep it. I think it's above what's outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people).Civicoblivion (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons for keeping?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Searches showed nothing beyond trivial coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial mentions do not notability make. Neutrality^talk 21:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is coming along, and I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up notable by WP standards, but the sourcing simply isn't there at present. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent average memory access time

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

WP:TOOSOON. The topic of this page was introduced in a 2014 research article in IEEE Computer, which so far has attracted, according to GScholar, 4 citations. Two of those are in the (non-peer reviewed) magazine HPC Today, and have been written by the author of the IEEE Computer article; they're the same article, but GScholar didn't get that. The third is a self-citation, leaving only one non-affiliated source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The C-AMAT wiki page has been viewed over 400 times from web users within three months. I do not believe that the number of publication citations is an accurate metric to use for determining the relevance of a topic. In fact, publications are for a technical audience, while wikipedia provides an overview from a high-level about a topic. Because of this, I believe there are many people who want to know about the general concept of C-AMAT as can be seen from the figure on the right as well as the numerous media appearances of C-AMAT. The current page statistics for the C-AMAT page are incorrect, and thus I understand why you may have gotten the wrong impression about the popularity of C-AMAT.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahaider3 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahaider3: the graph doesn't prove anything. When I google for "concurrent memory" and a variety of similar queries, this page is the first hit. That doesn't mean readers were actually looking for C-AMAT, only that search engines like Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, except for a very short mention in the Average memory access time article for weight, as a non-notable concept. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwertyus: When I type "concurrent memory", I do not get the C-AMAT wiki page. In fact, the reason why I created a "C-AMAT" redirection page is because of the difficulty in finding the Concurrent Average Memory Access Time wiki page from a standard google search. I believe the amount of viewers does show the relevance and interest in the topic especially considering it was very hard to stumble upon the wiki page unless the entire title is spelled out in a google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.63.79 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

75.34.63.79 (Ahaider3?): could be your search bubble. Try Yahoo or DuckDuckGo. Both put the C-AMAT page on top. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing with DuckDuckGo and Yahoo, Google still has a much larger audience. And it’s not a search bubble --- if you Google "concurrent memory" within "incognito" browsing mode, this page didn't show up until you reach the third page of search results. Ahaider3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.63.79 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, unsourced and no assertion of notability. Daniel (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find anything to rise to the level of WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unwed Sailor. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Hedge

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

No claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. The reference merely confirms the song existed. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unwed Sailor. A standalone article isn't justified but worth a redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unwed Sailor, the artist. Could not find enough sources to demonstrate notability. BethNaught (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russell P. Fradin

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

Probably non-notable. As CEO of a large company he is of course mentioned occasionally, announcing company activities or offering short statements, but I couldn't find in-depth coverage about his career, views or other not company-related details. Most company-related details are already covered in company articles, as they should be. Maybe American editors with more background knowledge can comment. GermanJoe (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although there are a few articles linking him, there's nothing suggest a good move or independent notability (searches here, here, here and here). SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Found some articles about his activities, but not enough to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Gorchoff

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He is mentioned in the cited source, but only in the appendix, and only in passing. The sum total of what the source says about him is that he was "an asset of the New York GRU in 1943" and that his codename was "Gustav." So while he may have been a Soviet Spy, and his name may have been mentioned (once, and once only) in the Venona cables, he is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and is therefore not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was he an "asset" of the GRU, or did he "work for" the GRU, or was he an active espionage agent? A brief mention in a cable message is thin soup. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were active allies in 1943. It seems that Gorchoff was an official in the International Association of Machinists, a left wing trade union, and may have had legitimate reasons for communicating with the Soviets during the joint fight against Hitler. The Soviet spy handlers may have had an interest in exaggerating the importance of their "assets". Or maybe he was a genuine spy. I don't know. But a passing mention in an advocacy source like this is entirely inadequate to support a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)|[reply]
Delete per the above. No significant coverage in reliable sources. I imagine that there is a bit more of this in List of Americans in the Venona papers that was split off from Venona project ten years ago. - Location (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Location: yeah, that's how I found it - there's a discussion about that list article here at RS/N if anyone's interested. I am slowly working my way through the list and plan to send at least a few more of the articles linked to AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see publications mentioning "George Gorchoff"; and publications using Gustav. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found all of those - they appeared to all be passing mentions of the article subject, or primary sources (transcripts of union meetings). I looked, but did not see any sign of significant coverage of this person in third party, reliable sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom PriceDL (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be very solid evidence he was a spy, and it appears there was only ever one George Gorchoff, probably of Russian descent. (Gorchoff would not have been his family's surname as Gorchov is not a name, so it was probably shorted from something like Gorchovsky, thus the rarity.) I added a second source about who his handler was. I'm going to try to find more info. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a spy doesn't make someone notable, the level of coverage they get in RS does. WP:GNG and WP:BIO make it clear that the person needs to be the subject of significant coverage in RS, which "addresses the topic directly and in detail," and is "more than a trivial mention." I don't think either of the sources currently cited in the article fulfill that requirement. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm pretty skeptical that you'll find much else - I did look into this pretty carefully, and as far as I could tell any secondary sources which mention Gorchoff do so on the basis of this Venona intercept, which, again, mentions him only in passing. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helpchat

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

Not notable. Does not meet GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to hold off for a day or two, before nominating this article for deletion myself. As it stands, the only substantive statement made regarding the actual topic of the article is that "Helpchat is chat-based personal assistant app". Everything else is basically PR, and about the company's intentions. This simply isn't sufficient material on which to build an encyclopaedic article, and I can find no real evidence that anything more substantial in the way of useful third-party sourcing exists. Without such sourcing, the subject simply cannot meet our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, it's just not notable. -- Orduin ^Discuss 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (See WP:INDAFD) There are significant coverage in reliable sources (see here). — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how many of those sources tell us anything more than what the article already states? Where are the articles that actually review the application? Where are the articles telling us about market share? All you seem to have found is the same recycled PR about the company's future objectives reported in multiple sources - and a rebranding exercise for a product doesn't make it notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin:, I saw those, but as AndyTheGrump noted, they are mainly press releases by the company's PR people. They don't go towards notability. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company with one ref and a bunch of passing mentions; fails WP:CORP, and looks like yet another promotional article. Miniapolis 23:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Fails WP:CORP and particularly WP:CORPDEPTH, and there's far too much silliness going on for an article of such little magnitude. As it is very likely that the creator will recreate it and cause the same problems, sodium chloride is the prescription here. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible but I won't press for a salt yet. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. Needs multiple non-press release references. shoy (reactions) 13:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject have significant coverage in reliable sources but most of published sources are either press releases and reviews which may not be considered as the reliable one. The article also fails WP:CORP. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Towne

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

I'm extremely surprised this article's been up for 10 entire years unsourced!, Despite being in quite alot of tv shows/films there's nothing on her at all except mentions and a few stories on her Ex, Fails GNG (and to an extent NACTOR). –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the family members (parents or ex-husband) as my searches found nothing convincing of independent notability here, here, here and here. If not, simply delete I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well she's only mentioned once there so in a round about way it's a useless redirect, I know redirects are cheap & all that but personally think it's useless. –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any notability for this person. It's like being the background zombie in a zombie movie; just not notable. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find enough to show notability even for a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route 4 Connector

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

A 500 foot long stretch of road from one Rhode Island route to another Rhode Island route. Unless you have a deep and profound interest in New England Stop & Shops, I would hardly say this passes WP:NN. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no indication that the term "Route 4 Connector" is used for this stretch of road, which appears to be no different than any other exit ramp connecting two routes. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, no context, no article. Deb (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard to even verify it exists (I see no notable "Route 4 Connector", but only a few of the mentions are in RI, and most of those are about the connection between 95 and 4, not 108 and 4. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this editor's creations are verging on WP:CIR-esque territory where most of his new articles are either deleted or redirected forthwith. Like the rest of them, they're either quite tenuous on notability grounds, or OR-based creations of his imagination. This falls into the latter category, I think, and it should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and second the WP:CIR sentiment. –Fredddie ™ 00:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unimportant connector road. Dough4872 12:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non admin closure. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Change Management Concept

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

Doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and this reads like a seminar on reducing stress. Other than that, I've found only trivial coverage of this topic after a bit of searching. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some passages appear to have been copied from a book or website. Might be speedy eligible for this reason alone. Also, see [24], which appears to have been the same article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JB Agustin

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

Delete: non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 00:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence here. He had one major role in Little Champ but since then has not been in any starring roles. This does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. There are some sources in the article but only one is in-depth about him. I couldn't find additional sources via Google but of course there might be. So this is not looking good for WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No more evidence presented for notability so Delete. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has facebook are not reliable source even those children actor are not notable as WP:TOOSOON. Oripaypaykim (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely WP:TOOSOON, currently does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7. Materialscientist (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debatrayee Banerjee

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

Fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - All my searches with "Debatrayee Banerjee" found simply self-generated material with nothing even in the least good. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joobs

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

No evidence of notability. Most of the sources mention the subject only in passing, if at all. I prodded this as an IP, now signing in to AFD. JNW (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joobs was not mentioned by name in the New Times article, but he played the main character and was mentioned by name in the Yabyum and AZ Central articles. It's hard to google joobs, the internet thinks that you're trying to type in "jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.142 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Yabyum article lists him as a cast member [25]; and the passing mention in AZ Central is equally easy to miss [26]. There's a reason it's hard to find him on Google. JNW (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - I see nothing convincing to keep and my searches found nothing either. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not yet reached the level of notability required of musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not reveal enough to show he currently meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jett Rink

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

Non-notable with IndyWeek being the best coverage they ever got and my searches found here and here. With no good move target and no hopes of improvement, there's nothing to suggest keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in third party sources to meet notability standards. The Undead Never Die (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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