Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 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.

The result was speedy delete. blatant spam Jimfbleak (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taxzippy

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

Non-notable software: only one RS; the rest are mentions and purely trivial mentions. — Esquivalience (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, we're at 22 delete to 12 keep, which is a substantial majority but not quite consensus. The arguments boil down to "it's reliably sourced" vs. "it's a synthesized fringe coatrack." These are all valid opinions within the range of editorial judgment usually applied to articles of this type, so I can't determine whose arguments ought to carry more weight. Because of the close outcome, a relatively quick renomination (on the order of days) might be appropriate. Sandstein 19:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016

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

A hodge-podge coatrack of mostly mistitled and unrelated conspiracy theories, none of which independently arise to the standard of notability we require for an article about an ongoing event. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROFRINGE - everything sourced to RS (Washington Post, New York Times, CNBC, etc.) and RS establish these ideas, though ludicrous, pass our GNG for sheer volume and breadth of repetition, not unlike other weird ideas like Roswell UFO incident, etc. The article is a sober, academic treatment and is not actually promoting the ideas, which is a key criteria of PROFRINGE. The first section of this entry, further, establishes the underlying sociological and anthropological importance of irrational thinking in American politics by reference to academic study, justifying an entry providing deeper examination. Finally, not a "hodge podge" but meets our definition of WP:LISTDD. LavaBaron (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by comparison, in a related AfD BlueSalix noted the case of Boyd Bushman as an example of PROFRINGE, while explaining this is not a case of that. LavaBaron (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly contains sufficient RS to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Definitely passes WP:PROFRINGE as these ideas are written about in mainstream outlets not linked to the original conspiratorial source. I think it might fail WP:NOTNEWS and could possibly be merged into United States Presidential Election, 2016. --DrCruse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN. Where are the sources about this subject? This loosk to be a mishmash of various incidents a source happened to call a "conspiracy theory". Anything beyond that is WP:OR. See WP:LISTN: "Notability of lists ... is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. [...] The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." (italics added). In other words, while no one source has to touch on all of these, notability is based on the group, not sources about individual examples. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the section titled "references." LavaBaron (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to highlight any? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Harper's Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Media Matters for America, Snopes, Slate, NBC News, The Intercept, Gawker, Real Clear Politics, and Huffington Post. LavaBaron (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Ok, let's look at each one.

Harper's - published in 1964. Not likely about conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election of 2016.
New York Times - There are zero NY Times citations in the article.
Washington Post - I guess you could mean either of two:

One is about a particular conspiracy theory: Hillary's neurological health. This one is the best source in the article you created about that rumor, Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor, which is presently snowballing at another AfD.
The other one is about a particular conspiracy theory: Trump as a plant to support Hillary.

Media Matters - Hannity said something about Hillary's health. Nothing here about the subject of this page. Just another example.
Snopes - Not a typical one to highlight, but again, there are two:

One is also about the Hillary neurological health conspiracy theory.
The other is also about Trump as a plant for Hillary.

Slate - Doesn't even mention anything being a conspiracy theory. It's about the specific example of the supposed Trump-Putin connection (which other sources have called a conspiracy theory). Still not about the subject of this page, though.
NBC News - Also doesn't mention "conspiracy theory". About the specific example of Trump's "rigged" election.
The Intercept - About the specific example of the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory.
Gawker - Two articles from Gawker, both about the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.
Real Clear Politics - About the specific example of Hillary's neurological health.
Huffington Post - About the specific example of Trump being a plant for Hillary.

Not even one of these supports the notability of this page, which requires not a bunch of sources about a bunch of specific examples of stories that have been called conspiracy theories, but sources about the group that is "conspiracy theories of the 2016 election". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply listing every reference in the article and then yelling "irrelevant!" doesn't do much to make your case. Sources do not need to (and rarely do they) reference the title of a WP article verbatim. That's not how this works. I'm shocked you believe it is. (Also, please dial it back to about a 9. Thanks.) LavaBaron (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird response (assuming it's neither disingenuous nor an intentional misrepresentation). Where have I said they need to reference the title of an article verbatim? They merely have to be about the subject of the article, and not simply about examples you've decided are part of a larger subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're all directly about the subject of the article. The fact you're doubling down on the idea they're not, when anyone can click on any of them and read them, seems to be indicating you're either (A) hoping no one will, or, (B) claiming hey have to reference the subject by name. Which is sort-of ... odd. LavaBaron (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - encyclopedic, as long as we stay firm on good sourcing. I do appreciate this has stupendous potential as a foolishness magnet - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rhododendrites's concise analysis of the sourcing. Keep this embarrassment away from here and leave it to the tinfoil side of the Internet, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many RS have discussed the election's conspiracy theories collectively, in enough depth for WP:LISTN. All these articles are about multiple conspiracy theories: two on both sides, one about Trump-targeting ones, and three about Clinton-targeting ones.

Fox News Latino: discusses Trump plant theory and Putin agent theory, along with Trump campaign's support for various others
Chicago Tribune op-ed: "Donald Trump loves conspiracy theories. So do his foes." Describes many, on both sides, in detail
CBS: titled "A guide to the conspiracy theories about Donald Trump"
CNN: "the Republican presidential nominee has repeatedly amplified and offered roundabout endorsements to conspiracy theories"
NBC: titled "Trump's Conspiracy Theories Aren't Far Outside GOP Mainstream"
Slate (partisan): titled "The Real Meaning of All Those Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About Hillary’s Health"

Together, there's enough material to justify a respectable introduction and summary to meet LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Those are substantially better than anything in the article currently. Might be enough for me -- will come back to this later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you... if you want to get right to the bottom of something. a quality survey on a short schedule, FourViolas is the guy you want. E Eng 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks. But here are a few more good ones if you're on the fence:

a NYT op-ed by Middle East foreign policy experts looks at the effect Trump's are already having in the Middle East
A WaPo news article ties them into other Middle East CTs.
The Daily Beast reports on a quantitative analysis of Trump's supporters' affinity for CT-related topics
Politico covers a meta-debate over the consequences and proper response to all this conspiracy theorizing.

Wondering if MjolnirPants noticed these when coming to the conclusion that "there are no sources discussing these theories as part of this election." FourViolas (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if FourViolas ignored the rest of my post in favor of quoting the one part that could be taken out of context so easily. Not trying to be a dick, but seriously: my whole comment was about how we haven't hit the end of the conspiracy theories yet. More are all but guaranteed. It's not rocket surgery to assume I meant that particular sentence in the same context. Just to be clear, I've edited my original comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was an honest question; it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. But I don't understand the rest of your rationale. Since we do have RS analyzing and commenting on the phenomenon as a whole (so far), I don't see a policy-based reason to refrain from writing an article until the election season is over. You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. FourViolas (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...it's easy to miss things, and you didn't mention them. Fair enough, now let's not discuss that point any more. It won't advance this discussion and could turn things adversarial. As it is, I am writing with a smile on my face, so let's keep it that way.

You might as well say we should delete Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, because there's no way to know what the long-term outcome or lingering effects will be. Yep. I'd vastly prefer to wait until the campaign was over to write that article. But (and of course, there's a but) that article doesn't have the potential for abuse and drama this one has, and that's a big factor in my vote. So I'll deal with having an article about her campaign before it's done because that's only going to attract the usual drama of random IPs adding weasel words and the occasional rabidly-anti-Hillary editor wanting to insert something about some conspiracy theory about her. The conspiracy theory article, on the other hand, is going to be a magnet for every far-right and far-left editor we have (and, given the nature of this election, a good chunk of the moderate-left and moderate-right editors) to butt heads over how to describe each conspiracy theory and how much weight to lend Every. Goddamned. Sentence. That smacking sound you hear, by the way, is me facepalming at the mere thought of all that drama. (it's a truly epic facepalm. The facepalm heard 'round the world, as it were.) However, if we wait until the election is done, we can at least point to sources analyzing the theories with the benefit of hindsight, making for sources which are much clearer in their tone and depictions, and not focused on debunking. That, then makes it easier for whichever editor is going by the source to win that particular fight. So at least they'll be quicker fights if we wait. I dread the thought of the drama on that talk page the week before election day if we keep it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got an honest laugh out of me, too! Thank you very much for the detailed explanation; I see where you're coming from, and the desire to protect the wiki from nightmarish election drama is a fair IARgument. I'm personally willing to cross my fingers, grit my teeth, and pray to the page protection gods, but you have a good point. FourViolas (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, I'm still of the position that this should be deleted. While there are sources about people using conspiracy theories as a tactic, about there being a number of them out there this election cycle, etc. I'm still not seeing a distinct encyclopedic subject here -- not any more than we could pull sources together to create list of smears of the 2016 election, controversies of the 2016 election, lies of the 2016 election, etc. There are reliable sources about all of those, but the subjects discussed are actually tactics of the candidates and their supporters (i.e. the campaigns, the issues, and in rare cases the specific controversies/conspiracies/smears/scandals/whatever other style of coats we might put on a rack). I want to add, as well, that the content of the article is basically a recreation of two of LavaBaron's other articles -- one deleted (Clinton brain damage conspiracy theory), one still up (Trump plant theory) -- and almost nothing else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This provides a useful destination to document outlandish claims, hopefully preventing the repeated badgering of the main election articles and endless discussions about notability, sourcing and due weight of such claims in main articles. — JFG ^talk 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:TOOSOON. Should this article exist at some point? Absolutely. By this time next year, if this article doesn't exist, I'll be the one to re-create it. But right now? No. Not just "No," but "Hell no." The election season isn't even close to being done yet. There's no way to analyze patterns or view this subject as a whole until then. We can't discuss the lingering effects of them at all. Hell, just making the article is a weak form of WP:SYNTH, as there are no sources discussing [the totality of] these theories as part of this election. The only purpose this article can serve is to debunk the conspiracy theories contained therein. While I am a huge (YUUUUUUGE) fan of debunkings, WP is just not the place for it. let's leave it to the fact checkers until we have some RSs commenting on the phenomenon as a whole. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants not sure I agree yet, but you have some valid points I'm going to marinate on and reconsider my own !vote in light of; thanks for providing such a thorough comment and rationale. LavaBaron (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm inclined to keep, you have a point that this is going to be a major foolishness magnet - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "foolishness magnet" is exactly what we need to focus such allegations in an easily-manageable space; this will save countless headaches elsewhere. Besides it is encyclopedic in demonstrating the absurdity of fringe theories on both sides of this political choice. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that there's a finite pool of foolishness into which this article will dip, drawing foolishness from other articles. I, on the other hand, hold as gospel truth that (almost certainly apocryphal) old 'Einstein' quote. "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEWAY is a powerful tool for shooing fringe theorists away from main articles and towards this one. This one can in turn be handled using already-established discretionary sanctions, including protection. WP has taken on human stupidity in the past, and...well, mostly survived. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address my point (which I admit I implied instead of stating). I don't think that one article being a hotbed of drama is going to tamp down on the drama going on anywhere else. I've seen with my own eyes how an editor involved in one case of drama can get just as caught up in one or more other cases of drama. I mean, seriously: Do we really think that adding an article ripe for controversy (while dampening our ability to appeal to our Almighty Lord of All, the Reliable Source (hallowed be their urls)) is going to make for less controversy? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a strong consensus (!16-4-2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor to delete that page, which was copied-and-pasted by the author to a section on this article as a way to circumvent that AFD. It is inappropriate for that material to be removed by consensus yet stay against that decision just because it's in a collective topic article, nor should we have to discuss it again. This could be summarized int a couple sentences in another article. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Pinged here above. Article clearly passes PROFRINGE, only question is if it is WP:SYNTH? My read is no. BlueSalix (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia is not a newspaper; let's have things settle down). I believe that synthesis & coatrack applies as well, and quite POV. I also concur with the arguments presented at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor]] -- WP is not a place for unsubstantiated rumors even if they have been debunked. This borders on BLS violation, along with NPOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you take away the lead sentence and the para about a 1964 essay (which none of the sources used even mention), you have over 80% of the content left being devoted to Clinton. That same content about Clinton was recently deleted in another AfD. I don't see any reason to retain it here either. And the WaPo ref is still being misquoted, which implies that some of the conspiracy theories may have merit.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just addressed most of those concerns, but they're all content-related. Do you have an opinion on the inherent notability of the topic?FourViolas (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think WP:PROFRINGE applies here. Which means this is simply a bunch of fringe theories that, if they were unsourced, would automatically be deleted. However, there are reliable sources available. At this point, I'm leaning merge and condense the information into United States presidential election, 2016 (otherwise, it'll just inspire editors to add more conspiracy theories that can be defamatory). epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Otherwise, it will inspire a flood of similar articles for every election and ballot measure at every level of government worldwide. It's pretty easy to use Google to research this topic. 5Q5 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's reliably sourced, even though it's theories. Google is not really a good place to "just" research on any topic, much less this one... epicgenius (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I edited the article a bit to remove intricate detail and off topic content (diff). The article is still a bit "pulp journalism" so not changing to a Keep vote yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- friends, romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come not to praise Wikipedia but to bury its astonish pro-conservative bias. There is an article on the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama is a Muslim, an article on the conspiracy theory that Obama is a Kenyan, an article on thr conspiracy theory that Obama is the antichrist for crying out loud, yet our ultra-conservative, white "nationalist" ('we're the only ones not allowed to have ethnic pride!" Wailed the poor deeply opressed white men who run this cabal) overlords refuse an omnibus article on the many, many, many, many well-sourced and yet to be disproven Trump conspiracy theories? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, friends. Join the side of reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia Sovereign (talk • contribs) 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone say "foolishness magnet"? We're already hosting Hitler comparisons. A source mentioned it, so I guess it belongs? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a WP:POVFORK that serves to highlight information that would be WP:UNDUE in articles about the individuals. There would be no problem having a conspiracy theory article about presidential elections in general, providing it was based on secondary sources with an analysis of each "theory" and its long-term significance to those on each side. The reason there are Obama conspiracy theory articles is that the attacks on Obama have been long term—many of them were started in an attempt to sway the 2008 election, and are half heartedly continued today. The 2016 election article is a list of attacks mounted by one side against the other, and there should not be an article with a list of news-of-the-day reports/blogs on them. Anything significant should be in an article on the individual or the individual's election campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My, my, my, Wikipedia's army of angry, sclerotic white men are out in full force today! Anything to save our dear leader, beloved of the Klan, and savior of the white race, right friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia Sovereign (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL14. I think this article began as a good-faith effort to describe (with support from reliable sources) conspiracy theories that have been floating around. However, over the last few days, things have gotten out of hand at this article and it now includes claims that Trump is "Putin's patsy" and that Trump is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. Furthermore, as other editors have noted already, a large section of the article was copied and pasted from another recently-deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton brain damage rumor). I am not opposed to re-creating this article (or articles about the specific theories) in due time once commentators have provided enough commentary about the history, significance, or impact of the existence of these theories, but right now, I think it is best to delete this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think the article is becoming a parody page (diff), and is best deleted. Here's a sample, in case the article gets wiped out:

"An extraordinary interdisciplinary consensus of psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neuroscientists, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, neurologists, therapists, psychometricians, and other mental health professionals have expressed their worries that, in their professional opinion, Trump suffers from a serious, disabling mental illness-- of an order of magnitutde greater than the usual low-level mental disturbance required to enter politics. This view has also been voiced, and endorsed, by prominent laypersons. According to a widely published report, Trump requires an extraordinarily potent cocktail of mind-altering drugs and a round-the-clock regimen of psychoanalysis to manage his fragile psyche."^[1]

References

^ https://www.sott.net/article/314132-I-suffer-from-severe-psychological-issues-and-I-need-the-help-of-mental-health-professionals-says-Trump

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a coatrack. I question how many of these items individually could stand on their own. I note, as linked above several times, Hilary's Neurological condition theory has had an article based off of it deleted. The Election rigging theory doesn't even seem to be a conspiracy theory but random comments by Trump on how he could possible lose and commentary based off of it. Does "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016" have any notability in itself? I'm not convinced it meets GNG. Stand alone, only the sections on Trump might meet GNG but I'm not convinced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with the above. As written, the article appears to be about "Media coverage of conspiracy theories (...)", not about the theories themselves. The topic is ill defined and is not suitable for an encyclopedia article yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coatrack that fails to meet requirement of GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all arguments above.Alhanuty (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Serialjoepsycho, Johnuniq and others have said most of what I would say. The article subject is ill-defined, and not notable in itself, per GNG. Perhaps in a year or two there may be RS about "Conspiracy theories of the United states presidential election, 2016" as a topic, but right now it feels like a coatrack to hang deleted content and sundry press reports on, and a magnet for fringe/partisan stuff floating around the internet. Not a suitable article at this time. --Begoon ^talk 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON crap-magnet coatrack. E Eng 17:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both collectively and individually, there have been many reliable sources about this field. They are not just one day's news. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TRIVIA in short, non-encyclopedic garbage. Wikipedia is not part of the blogosphere echo chamber. Let Breitbart and Daily Kos fight this shit out. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except not a single one of the 39 references in this article are blogs, unless you count Politico, Washington Post, Huffington Post, CBS News, MSNBC, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, and The Guardian as "blogs". LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except (quote from the article): "The following Monday the National Enquirer ran a front-page feature titled "Hillary Clinton's Secret Health Crisis" while the Drudge Report posted a photo showing Clinton tripping on a flight of stairs, in which it was insinuated the accident was a result of medical issues." cited to this: Collins, Ben (August 9, 2016). "'Is Hillary Dying' Hoax Started by Pal of Alex Jones". The Daily Beast. Retrieved August 10, 2016.. Blogosphere garbage echoing blogosphere garbage.. Jytdog (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "article" is a WP:POVFORK and also has WP:UNDUE issues for a stand alone article; seems more appropriate for the National Enquirer. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider it a WP:ONEWAY containment spinout rather than an independent list-type topic. GNG would be met even if it were considered an independent topic. Rhoark (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is extensively sourced with WP:RS citations which IMO more than satisfies the standards in WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE. To the extent that there may be issues, including possibly insufficient attention to rebuttal of some of the fringe theories, I do not believe any of them are fatal or justify a WP:TNT type approach. Whatever problems exist, fall under the heading of WP:SOFIXIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's just drawing POV-pushers who are making loony edits. Most of the things listed will be forgotten in a month anyway. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's WP:SYNTH. It's a WP:LIST of things the various editors think should be included, rather than a genuine article. There appear to be no agreed upon criteria for inclusion. And worst of all, virtually everything listed is a WP:BLP violation. The really important items will be dealt with at relevant election or biography pages. The rest are simply an invitation to POV pushers to add their favorite. And if you agree that's happening now - just wait a month. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the sources, virtually all of them specifically address these as conspiracy theories; we haven't assigned that moniker to these and then just strung them together. So, no, it's not SYNTH. For instance, this Politico article titled " The 5 Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theories of 2016" [1] etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say 5 sources publish articles with titles like "Top 10 Models of 2016", with 8 of the names the same across all 5 articles. That wouldn't justify us having a "Top 10 Models of 2016" article. E Eng 04:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. E Eng 05:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I think the synth in question is the taking of 5 different X's, from 5 different sources, and combining that into List of X's. (I had absurdly hoped that we would actually have an article called "List of X's", but nope. It's a redlink. Sigh.) Each X might be sourced independently, but that means there are no sources talking about the List of X's, except Wikipedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no idea what you just said. Each example listed here has been positively identified as a "conspiracy theory" by multiple RS. LavaBaron (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, how to explain this... Synthesis of information is a very nuanced subject. What he's saying is (I believe) that we lack sources discussing the phenomenon of conspiracy theories in respect to this election. We also lack sources discussing the combined aspects of those conspiracy theories that have popped up in this election. No-one is suggesting that calling them conspiracy theories itself is synth, but rather that having an article about them as a whole is. Now, this particular problem has an easy solution: make an article about each conspiracy theory. That wouldn't be synth. But having an article about all of them as a phenomenon (which is what this article is) requires us to analyze them as a whole, rather than reporting what RSs say about them. Do you get what I mean? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Conspiracy theories are a subject academic study, and the 1964 source used in the article, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," is a classic article by Richard Hofstadter. In order to identify conspiracy theories one needs expert sources, not Wikipedia editors or journalists who overuse the term. Most of these theories are better referred to as unfounded rumors. Also, to write an article about conspiracy theories in the election, one would need to establish that it is a notable topic, not that any particular theory was notable. Such a source would explain why these theories are conspiracy theories rather than just label them. TFD (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, so how about renaming the page to "Unfounded rumors in the US presidential election, 2016"? — JFG ^talk 11:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way to early to speculate whether "vast right wing conspiracies" are conspiracies or a tactic to dismiss issues. Either way, the article is disparaging to many living people and skewed to whoever the last editor is. Regardless, discussing things like Hillary's health when multiple doctors have weighed in is a BLP violation to disparage their opinion as a conspiracy theory regardless of whether it is Clinton's doctor or a news medical expert. Too much marginalizing language makes it a massive POV and BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but is reliably sourced and notable. A good structure for an article that deserves to be on Wikipedia. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably, because a lot of work has gone into this and it will be useful in the future. A concrete analogy is needed to show why this is synthesis. President of the US is a good analogy I believe. The article President of the United States is about the role, function and history of the office of President. List of US Presidents provides us with a list and brief summary of each person to have filled the role. The individual bios give a detailed examination of each president. This article tries to do all three, the drawback being there is no role or history to talk about yet. So it provides a list of conspiracy theories plus goes into detail about each one.

Looking at our present article, I am sure that after the election there will be academic discussion about what role these theories had in affecting the outcome of the election. The theories about the winner will live on; some will believe Clinton cheated if she wins, or others will continue to question Trump's ties with Putin if he wins. Ultimately, the truly relevant and notable theories will have their own articles, a list of them may be necessary depending on their number, plus an article under the current title will exist to discuss the effect these theories did or did not have. But until the dust has settled, this article in its current state is synthesising too many things under one umbrella. Move it to user space for now, because I'm certain it will be useful in the not too distant future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poly-MVA

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

Purported CAM modality with no indication of notability beyond inclusion in a directory. This topic falls way below the standard required of a medical topic. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable quackery. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Actually, Keep seems to be notable quackery. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG Keep: @Alexbrn: Oh, this have coverage in reliable sources. :) KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KGirlTrucker81 & DavidLeighEllis: but see below: this is on the radar of the big cancer centres (remember it has other names) and they cover it reliably. Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's quackery alright, but notable quackery. The American Cancer Society have a dedicated 3-page entry for it in their book American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer, and (under its other name Polydox) the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has this content on it. Wikipedia should be providing reliable information on this rubbish, based on these strong sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimfadhley: what is the "directory" you refer to (I see Quackwatch have it on a list here). The text of the ACS content is pretty much all avaialble here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - likely-notable quackery per Alexbrn. (Alex has considerably improved it from previous ...) I've also forked a copy on RationalWiki under CC by-sa, in case consensus kills it here, but I hope it won't - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage and the sentiment of deleting because it's quackery doesn't make sense to me because one would logically want the page to exist to notify people that it's quackery. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine French

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

Supplied references are grossly insufficient to establish notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not established by what is actually in the article. The article may have no sources at all, and the subject can still be notable. Editors need to look for sources online to see if the subject is notable or not instead of relying on what is already in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the product of a disastrously poorly-administered editathon seemingly coordinated by the minions of Satan to make everybody logged into Wikipedia squabble and hate one another, or possibly an experiment to see if you can write Wikipedia articles so bad you can get cancer from looking at them for too long. However, claims of notability are credible, and I'm afraid we're going to have to show our maturity by trying to clean this mess up. Blythwood (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full professor at high-quality university and director of its herbarium; top five research papers cited 255, 101, 92, 58, 52 times according to Google Scholar [2]. She is also particularly notable for her work on various national-level committees and as president of a national society. I believe this is adequate to satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak either way. A GS h-index of 16 is small for the well-cited field of life sciences and inclines to WP:Too soon, but this could be mitigated by contributions to science outside academic publishing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep She's widely published -- I think her h-index is small because she's in a very specialized field: weed ecology in Australia. Plus she's the director of the herbarium. Kudos to everyone who cleaned up that article. It looks way better now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- widely published, a journal editor, many activities, program director and full professor, leadership roles. The h-index is useful for the hard sciences, much less useful for biology and particularly agricultural work such as weed ecology. Clearly a leader in her field. Montanabw^(talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Galletti

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

Zero reliable sources or evidence of notability. Prod removed on completely spurious grounds. —swpb^T 13:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does have a source, Imdb. Also the PROD was not spurious. Anyone can object to a WP:PROD. Giving a reason for doing so is optional....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To editor WilliamJE: IMDB is not a reliable source. It has never been a reliable source. Its content is user-submitted. Yes, giving a reason for prod-removal is optional, but if a reason is given, it shouldn't be based on a falsehood, as this was. The reason given in the edit summary was "makes a claim to notability, so passes PROD". Well, that doesn't reflect what WP:PROD says at all. It suggests a policy stance that does not exist, and never has. —swpb^T 17:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Further comment with irony I along with another editor at Montanabbw's talk page suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Secondly note to all participants in this AFD- The editor who nominated this article for deletion originally wrote[3] 'Zero sources or evidence of notability' not Zero reliable sources or evidence of notability. This AFD 'doesn't reflect what' it was when it was created. It isn't proper wikipedia etiquette (If not policy too but I'm not absolutely certain) to edit a post once someone has replied to it except under certain limited conditions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Even if his role in Arrow is considered significant (which it's not, since it was a one-off appearance), that's only one role and NACTOR calls for several. He had recurring appearances in TV shows Connected, Saints & Sinners, and Desire, but I can't determine if they were particularly notable roles. Additionally, almost all references to him I can find online are cast listings or synopses of works he's been in, nothing to show actual notability. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on the three TV shows I mentioned earlier: Saints & Sinners and Desire were canceled before airing all of their episodes (Saints & Sinners, for instance, looks like it aired 22 out of 62 total, based on information at TV.com and IMDb). Both shows were also a product of MyNetworkTV, whose scripted shows flopped so bad that they quit the original programming business entirely. Connected looks promising (since he was the lead, according to IMDb), but I have found absolutely no information on it, even when filtering out Morgan Spurlock's show of the same name. The same problem exists for Saints & Sinners, which shares a name with a more recent show. It's almost impossible to show that Galletti had significant roles on these shows when I can hardly find any information on the shows themselves. clpo13_(talk) 23:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." Galletti seems to have appeared in 14 episodes of Desire (TV series), 9 episodes of Saints & Sinners (2007 TV series), and was lead in the less well-known comedy TV series Connected (which survived for two seasons, so wasn't a complete flop). I accept that these are sourceable principally to IMDb, which lists 51 credits for Galletti, but does anyone seriously contest his part in these, even if further sources should be sought? WP:Notability doesn't require the sources to appear in the article, only that they exist per WP:NEXIST, or are likely to exist per WP:NPOSSIBLE - remember this article is just a fortnight old. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided are not ideal but provide adequate number of credits to pass WP:GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No number of credits confers an automatic GNG pass because listed — GNG is a measure of the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article, not of what the article says. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RexxS & MontanaBW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RexxS uses the guideline quote: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, ..." and lists the shows this actor has been in as proof of notability. But the guideline states significant roles. Everything that this guy has been in, besides "Connected" has been background roles, even the shows where he's appeared multiple times. "Connected" is not a notable show, as I cannot find anything outside of its IMDB listing on Google, so that doesn't meet the multiple notable films, television shows provision of the guideline either. Valeince (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDb is not a reliable or notability-conferring source, for the purposes of getting a person over a Wikipedia inclusion rule — it's permitted to be there as an external link, but its presence does not make an article referenced enough to be kept (although it is enough to justify AFD over prod as the vector of deliberation over the article's includability or lack thereof.) And neither NACTOR nor GNG is passed by unsourcedly listing a bunch of roles that a person has played — it's passed by showing evidence that the actor has received reliable source coverage in media for the playing and the majorness of those roles. But nothing written or sourced here shows that at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Fails to establish any notability whatsoever. WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG not asserted. Also IMDB is generally not a reliable source, per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Scope creep (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter action figures

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

This is just a trivial list of toys better suited to a Wikia article. TTN (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and I had a hard time finding any coverage. However it's still an interesting list for a hobbyist, but best fit for a fan Wikia after all. The sad thing is that I couldn't find one. Best I could find was this book listing the figures in our article to a point. As it happens, it's based off an older version of this article. Since deletion of pages seems to also make viewing them after-the-fact impossible for anyone other than admins (inform me if I'm wrong here), I'll save the page as it is to my sandbox so if anyone finds this after the... Yeah, they wouldn't see a link here, would they... In any case, I'll save it there. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is an interesting topic, but I also agree that it is better suit for a fan Wikia. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron e Polo

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

Non-notable artist. The only really in-depth independant coverage in the references is this one in a local paper. The rest are artist-submitted bios, download sites, videos from the artist, a bare mention or do not mention the subject. A search did not find anything better. This artist may one day be notable but is not currently there. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG upcoming but not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn, nomination was shown to be incorrect. Amalthea 08:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Busch

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

Assertion of notability is made, but I find no source to support the claim. In particular, no Arthur Busch is mentioned in http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/AUS/summer/1968/HOK/ which is used to source Field hockey at the 1968 Summer Olympics Amalthea 19:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added three references and expanded the article. He was the goalkeeper of the 1968 Australian team that won a silver medal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now has five references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V1 Ltd

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

I still confirm everything from my now-removed PROD, none of this is actually substantial or convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot locate significant RS coverage to meet GNG & CORPDEPTH. The article is written as an advertorial, and it's not neutral, so WP: Promo applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonize America Mall Tour

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

This promotional tour hasn't been covered by the media. Sources are poor. Just like the group's prev minor tours Fifth Harmony Theatre Tour and Worst Kept Secret Tour. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, the only source I can find on the web is an article from newslines (which is blacklisted on WP, so I can't link to it) but I'm not sure a "Crowdsourced News Search Engine" is a reliable source. Most of the sources listed on the article are just the set lists from individual performances. And of the two sources that aren't set lists, one is from the official website and one is just a biography of the band with a trivial, one-sentence mention of the tour. Seagull123 Φ 20:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Seagull123 and Fails WP:GNG and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BrickArms

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

PROD removed with the basis of the listed sources being enough for notability but this is all because the company was involved with a "terror" event or also because of its "LEGO designer", Will Chapman, and there's essentially nothing else. There's still nothing actually suggestive of convincing. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in book and news sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, no convincing reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Change from Delete; Original comment: The only claim of notability is the White Bandit so-called controversy; but this appears to be trivial and not meeting CORPDEPTH. Other than that, the article reads as advertorial: "Will ultimately choose to begin to design and produce his own, more accurate minifigure accessories, running the company from the Chapmans' garage in Redmond, Washington and packing orders in the family's bonus room.[5]". This subject does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Compared to most of the "corporate spam" articles, this one has much better sourcing, and the company was profiled in a book by a Wired journalist, who calls it "the long tail of Lego". So I'm withdrawing my Delete vote. I'm still not sure if the coverage is sufficient for an encyclopedia entry, but compared to what passes for an article on Wikipedia, this is one of the better ones. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If it wasn't for the one "bandit" product, there would be no coverage of this company. The Bandit product might be notable, but the company is not. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As k.e.coffman says above. this company has significant sources coverage. All I did was search google news here:[10] with this NPR feature at the top of the page: [11]. WP:BEFORE would have been a good thing to run before starting this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer - Still none of the votes are addressing how and why this is independently notable from the attention for the LEGO connections and its LEGO-connected founder. Inherited notability is not applicable for articles. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wine-Searcher

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

Speedied as a G11 (promotional) but does appear to have a number of 3rd party sources, bringing to AfD for further review. Black Kite (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and even the listed news are still advertorial and searches so far are not finding convincingly better aside from a few guides. SwisterTwister talk 15:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like advertisement to me. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should probably be semi-protected to keep the COI editors out. Anyway, promotional tone can be fixed by editing, and I just did a quick pass through the article cleaning it up. Several of the sources are junk, but those sources that still work (like Forbes and Los Angeles Times) clearly meet WP:CORP criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article was copy edited on 3 August 2016‎ after the nomination for deletion to address promotional tone. Of note is that this article in the Los Angeles Times provides significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I stated in my comment above that I made a pass through the article to clean it up. As it stands now, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage currently on the page. Looks like the cleanup helped. Yvarta (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Armenian National Agrarian University. MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agribusiness Teaching Center

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

A non-notable academic organization; article history is replete with copyvios, promotional text, and directory-style organizational information. I see no sourcing that allows this to pass the GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICARE Foundation. A redirect to Armenian National Agrarian University is a possibility as well. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources found to establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete together with its brother ICARE Foundation, no reliable secondary sources to establish notability for either of them. Bishonen | talk 22:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with option to merge to Armenian National Agrarian University According to a paper by the Armenian International Policy Research Group, this topic "provides the first English language, western-style curriculum in the Armenian Agricultural Academy." We mention the AAA at Armenian National Agrarian University. Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Duncan

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

I honestly have no idea why this article was re-created. Same issues from the first time around, not enough reliable sources devoted to the subject. The subject is briefly mentioned in one sentence or a group of names without any notable accomplishments described in detail about him. In fact, the only sources that note Duncan in detail (as in more than one sentence) is his own website. ALongStay (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject has very little coverage in reliable sources. The page's current references are misleading as they do not detail the subject but instead mention him in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At one point, based on his reputation in the MA community, I thought that we may establish notability for Duncan but I'm still not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a further AfD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Duncan (martial arts) (2nd nomination) All resulted in a delete.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He is considered to be the Father of American Ninjutsu. [12]. This was reported by Black Belt Magazine which is considered to be a strong source within the martial arts community. Also if you look at the March 2013 article from Black Belt Magazine, there is an article about his life. This article can be seen here [13] Cantloginnow (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)— cantloginnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cantloginnow is believed to be another CrazyAces489 sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't have a lot of significant independent coverage in independent reliable sources, but I think Duncan is more notable (and better known) than many of the martial artists who have articles. If you look at [14], you'll see a number of covers and articles about or by him. I don't have copies of these magazines so I can't confirm the coverage is significant, but it could be. I voted to keep this article at the original AfD discussion, but I'm sitting on the fence right now. There is some coverage and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't unreservedly confirm there's the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the same place last year. I thought he probably was notable enough, but I'm not seeing the coverage to support it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems to be well known but his claims are hard to verify and the coverage of him is short on significant, independent, reliable sources.Jakejr (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC
KEEP I have seen enough significant coverage to vote keep. innovatived ninjitsu. Black belt magazine article is what turned it for me. 71.190.34.72 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)— 71.190.34.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Is this another sockpuppet? Same argument wording as made by 64.134.102.6 and Cantloginnow.Jakejr (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPMC

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

Non-notable Minecraft server D3RP4L3RT (DERPALERT) (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. PROD probably would have been fine here also. shoy (reactions) 13:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Could've been speedied. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jan Skala. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jugoslovenima

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not even assert notability, and Jan Skala is sadly a redlink (there are fair pl:Jan Skala and de:Jan Skala, both failing to even mention the poem). No such user (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added some references strengthening the article. It's a notable author for sure, and his poem too.--109.245.77.165 (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Sorbian poetry collection edited by Predrag Piper is available online at Project Rastko. [15]. Along with Jugoslovenima (what would be Sorbian original?), it includes about a hundred poems, selected from thousands of Sorbian language poems, and millions of poems written in other languages. What makes this one stand out from the millions? I don't deny Skala is a notable author, but not every work (particularly a minor one, such as a poem) by a notable author is notable. No such user (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is notable because this poem is a part of his struggle for the national minorities rights in the German Reich. He has a notable place in the 20ieth century German and European history.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vujkovica brdo, have you voted twice in this discussion? I find highly suspicious that your contributions on quite obscure articles are followed by a swarm of IPs from the 109.245.* range – apart from this page examples include B. Wongar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and K shortest path routing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as Talk:Nikola Tesla and Talk:Ivo Andrić. While it is not illegal to edit while logged out, it is a blockable offense to do so to vote multiple times or to gain an upper hand in a debate. If the 109.245.77.165 IP above was yours, kindly strike one vote. Thanks. No such user (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Jan Skala because the article does not tell us why this poem is more important than any other individual poem (i.e., fails WP:N). Sandstein 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely, it does: The poem is a cry for help to the Yugoslav people to stop the German persecution on Sorbs in Lusatia. Now, about the notability. It was translated into Serbian and published in Летопис Матице српске - Volume 323 1930 - Page 264. First published in his book of poetry "Drobjence" ("The Crumbs") in 1920, then in Jan Skala, Ludowe nakładnistwo Domowina, 1985, mentioned/published in two other books (Peter Jan Joachim Kroh: Nationalistische Macht und nationale Minderheit: Jan Skala (1889-1945) : ein Sorbe in Deutschland, Robert Elsie: Anthology of Sorbian poetry: from the sixteenth century to the present day : a rock against these alien waves, UNESCO/Forest Books, 1990 )--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jan Skala. The work is not individually notable per available sources. The fact that it appeared in an anthology is not sufficient to explain why this poem is notable. That would require secondary sources discussing why this work is important specifically. I don't see such sources yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limelight Software

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:GNG. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References do not provide evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this a different Limelight? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are 2 unrelated companies with similar names. Limelight Networks is not the subject of this afd. 'Limelight Software' is focused on developing music-related software and apps.Dialectric (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot locate sufficient sources to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nunbait

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Source searches are only providing passing mentions, such as this. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Described in media articles, toured nationally supporting both local acts and international visitors on tours, tracks given high rotation on national radio: passes WP:BAND#1, 4, 11.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first bad sign is a lead paragraph that mostly discusses other bands. Add to that the general low quality of the sources and I'm not seeing how the notability guidelines are being met. Although the sourcing does convince me that the band did indeed open a show for Nirvana (once), that in itself is not enough. As for multiple non-trivial coverage from reliable sources, it just isn't there.NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal keep, notable per Shaidar; I know good sources exist, but they'll be from the paper era and I'm presently on the wrong side of the world. Worst case, delete without prejudice - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is another good article in The Sydney Morning Herald.

Danielson, Shane (12 June 1992). "Nun of a kind". The Sydney Morning Herald.

Then there's Bob Blunt's Blunt : a biased history of Australian rock [16]. I don't have access to it but various things suggest they are covered in this book, could anyone with access have a look? They appear on the CDs that come with the book Who Cares Win on CD2, Animal. Track 12 Nunbait - "Poor Henry". Decent coverage in the book would confirm notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's always hard to find sources for bands from this pre-internet era, but I'm confident they exist. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just me, or is the early '90s somehow actually worse than the '80s in this regard ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is just enough to establish notability. The article needs work but that's not a sufficient reason to delete. Dan arndt (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Staunton

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. (All the references are either his own web site or goodreads.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertorially toned article about a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, and no reliable source coverage about him in media to support it. As usual, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a writer is entitled to keep an article written and sourced like this just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP completely lacking in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of phobias

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

This supposed list has two problems. First, it is actually two lists. There's something to be said for the lists of prejudice "phobias" but it doesn't belong here. Second, the first list is out of step with current clinical practice. These are all specific phobias, but with rare exceptions these words are a function of people making up names for particular things to be afraid of. By and large they only exist in a few books/websites which contain such a list, and people copying from said works. We shouldn't be doing that copying. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:LISTN. This is a list of notable phobias. Perhaps cutting down on phobias that don't really exist, or clearly defining phobias in the article would better serve the problems you addressed.Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to say that any of them exist? If you said, "I'm afraid of lizards", and I said, "clearly you have lacertophobia", well, your fear is real enough, but "lacertophobia" is just a word which may or may not be in some list somewhere. The point is that the name for all of them is "specific phobia"; people can make up lists of names and put them in books, but psychologists don't use those names, as far as I can tell, and from the point of view of diagnosis and possible treatment, one is like unto another. You can see this in the articles, many of list have the definition and then the same boilerplate text about phobias in general. Mangoe (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a list of notable phobias, or that it should be. I'm not sure that the list should exist at all, but if it does exist it should be a list of verifiable phobias. Specifically, a list page like this is a good place to collect entries that are found to be verifiable and worthy of mention in the encyclopedia, but which aren't notable enough to merit having an article of their own.--Srleffler (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's a list of notable phobias, and the list is useful for navigating between articles on the phobias. The "actually two lists" problem can be solved with a split (I'm not opposed to it, but I'm unsure if it's necessary). If there are any phobias that are "made-up," then the article for that phobia should be nominated for deletion, not this list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is that it is not a list of notable phobias, because specific fears are not as a rule notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there are plenty of phobias that are notable, and those are the ones that are listed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few phobias that are notable as individual fears. Most of these seem to have been made up as a project in giving everything a name, but clinically everything here falls under specific phobia. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. This is a well-formed list-based article with notability as an inclusion criteria, where notability of a specific phobia is based on having an article on WP. Clinical current practice regarding phobias is important and should be discussed somewhere on WP, but it doesn't have any bearing the notability of particular historical phobias--in each case notability depends on availability of reliable sources per WP:V and WP:GNG. Non-notable phobias (Quite a few such articles are currently up for deletion) can be cleaned from the list as needed. --Mark viking (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can rename this "list of specific phobias" if need be, or we can also split off separate pages for the "prejudice" phobias (e.g. homophobia), but this article does satisfy WP:LSC (reliable sources describe these as legitimate terms for specific phobias) and WP:SALAT (the scope of the list is manageable). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Keep. Contrary to many editors above, I assert that this should be a list of verifiable phobias, not necessarily notable ones. One of the ways a list like this can add value is by covering entries that are worth a mention, but not worthy of having an article of their own. Per Wikipedia policy, every entry on the list must be verifiable. I would strongly support narrowing the focus to make it List of specific phobias, and requiring that every entry be supported by a reliable medical source, either in the list itself or in a linked article. In some cases, articles on individual specific phobias could be replaced by redirects to the list, if the article doesn't add any information beyond the list entry and specific phobia. --Srleffler (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is used to show definition of many phobias in one page, specifically fear of..., as well as navigation to phobia articles via links. I'm against renaming this page to list of specific phobias nor list of veritable phobias to keep the title plain. I'm alright to split off prejudicial phobias, but I would rather oppose splitting. Planet Star 05:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid list of notable phobias useful for navigation. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN thru WP:LISTPURP, accept that list needs to be cleaned up, references added, and so on. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and salt per TNT. almost every entry on this list is just "fun with greek" and is a nonexistent condition, and I groan at the number of AfDs we have before us to get rid of all the garbage. This can ~maybe~ be recreated from scratch with actual phobias. Folks above say this is "manangeble" but please read the third paragraph of the lead - the internet is filled with garbage lists like this and there is going to pressure from spammers to add garbage. My preference would be rely instead on Category:Phobias to help people find the valid ones that have articles in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Salting and TNT can't go together :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List needs work, and clearer inclusion criteria need to be set, but it's a fine topic for a list. Maybe a good first step is to remove everything that we can't find a decent source for in a peer reviewed scientific journal or book? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem: what happens when this gets reduced to a relatively small number of entries which can be justified on the basis of common popular usage? At that point, it makes more sense to fold it back into the main article, where it can perhaps be defended. As long as it is a separate article, passers-by and "always improvers" will keep trying to copy the couple of lists that are out there back into the article, because that is what one does to list articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina James

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. Little or no independent reliable sourcing. No relevant nontrivial GBooks hits. Almost entirely dependent on promotional sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC lack of coverage and only nominations for the awards so that the pornbio guideline is not passed Atlantic306 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no major awards nor any other notable presence in the media, so she clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 15:32 CET.
Delete been there, done that didn't want the teeshirt. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails PORNBIO without significant award wins. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- trivial award and no significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails even minor indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 07:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails the low notability threshold for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

925five Records

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

Promotional article for a non-notable record company. Contested speedy. --Finngall ^talk 17:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable independent label. Appears to be mainly promotional and the user that contested the speedy is working on other articles for artists by this label. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking through the related articles too - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as newly started company with nothing coming close at all for substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There were some sources discovered during the course of the AfD, but those sources didn't gain any traction convincing the other discussants.

There's a suggestion that even if the company is not notable, their products might be. But, there was no significant discussion on that, so whether an article could be written about the product remains an open question. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KnowledgeTree

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

An amazing example how we have changed since 2009, we unfortunately have to use AfD instead as I frankly would've PRODed myself, my searches have noticeably found nothing better as the current sources are nowhere near convincing; simply not the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sorry, still reads like an advertorial about the company's history and products. Does not meet CORPDEPTH in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added better content with a couple of more sources, including a couple of CEO interviews, and removed anything that could be considered advertising. The article has gone from being nominated for deletion due to being advertorial and weakly sourced with three items to better with nine, and less advertorial. I read WP:CORPDEPTH and don't think any of these sources are routine, brief, passing or simple references. Please clarify your interpretation(s) so I know what you are referring to. The whole article now comes from this independent media coverage.Timtempleton (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would still not enough as the coversge itself is simply about either their funding and financing, relocating and other usual business activities such as interviews, none of it is substantial. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the things you mention - funding, interviews, financing, etc. - are what usually makes a business notable. I agree that the relocation to the historic building is more notable for nearby residents familiar with the sign, but I'll leave it in. Being listed as a top ten vendor in the SaaS space and an emerging vendor to watch by two different noted tech pubs suggest this is a refimprove candidate rather than a delete, but let's see what others think.Timtempleton (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply note that several other AfDs have noted that while a considerable amount of such coverage could be notable and acceptable, it's still not convincing enough for notability as that's also simply information about its activities and there has been consensus showing this is also advert-like such as for enticing investors and clients. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I purged the advert stuff - I don't like that any more than you do. I cringed when I viewed the first version of this article from almost ten years ago, written by the founder no less. Since none of the sources I used existed then, it would have almost certainly been immediately speedily deleted.Timtempleton (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article is currently neutrally worded which is an improvement. But the sources remain weak and the coverage does not raise to the level of CORPDEPTH. There are also trivial industry awards, and funding and product news, i.e. WP:ROUTINE.

However, I'm seeing discussions on the product in Google books, such as [Sarbanes-Oxley IT Compliance Using Open Source Tools by Christian B Lahti, Roderick Peterson and Adaptable and Adaptive Hypermedia Systems edited by Sherry Y. Chen, George D. Magoulas, among others. So it looks to me that the product may be notable, while the company is not. Edit: some of what comes up in Google Books may not be about this company / product (i.e. eLearning environment, my last link), But the SOX content is about the subject since it includes the URL of the company. It appears that they refocused on sales & marketing content in the recent years, vs general document management. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Post

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

Article about a company that is of questionable notability. Initially, a search suggests that there is quite a lot of coverage, but on closer inspection, much of this appears to consist of "advertorial"-type content. The company seems to have generated a lot of this, but it isn't independent. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources in the article, I also found CBS News [17], TechCrunch [18], Men's Fitness [19] and a namedrop in Fortune [20] that didn't seem like advertising masquerading as articles to me. shoy (reactions) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and no CORPDEPTH. Coverage is trivial: CBS is interview with the founder; TechCrunch is funding news; Men's Fitness is one paragraph in a round-up of similar services. The company exists; it raised money; and is doing PR. Insufficient depth for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and K.e.coffman . Fails WP:CORP and WP:SIGCOV .It is upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Sandstein 19:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kostchtchie

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

This character fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Necromancer and Paizo references already in the article are both reliable secondary sources independent of TSR/Wizards, so the GNG is met. A merge would not necessarily be inappropriate, but none has been attempted, making this premature. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how that at all passes the notability guideline. Neither is significant in its coverage and neither provides any real world information. They're just both fiction/setting guides for games. It certainly passes WP:V, but it's a huge stretch to say it comes anywhere near passing WP:N. It seems more like you're objecting for the sake of objecting. There are no exact procedural rules, so saying there's really no justification in saying this is somehow premature in procedure. Procedurally, this shouldn't have ever been created in the first place without fitting proper criteria to split it out from a parent article. TTN (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A fictional element showing up in derivative games IS real-world impact. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're using these characters under some kind of license from WotC, so I'm really not sure if those even truly count as secondary. Even if that is the case, you're missing the significant coverage part. "Character x appears in game y by company z" is trivial at best, and it's certainly not enough to hold an article on its own. It's no better than "character x appears in game y by 'parent company'" in terms of establishing notability. TTN (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are they? It's an interesting assertion, but even if true wouldn't impair independence. Fictional elements used in other games aren't trivial references, because they are part of the game experience. I'm not sure what you're thinking by saying that, because the quote you're using as a template/example isn't what's happening here. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Citing that the character exists in a game is completely trivial in both the standards of the source and the standards of sourcing an article. It is literally just saying "this topic exists", that it is one of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of fictional minutia that make up the body of a larger work. It's no different from someone claiming something like "the character is mentioned in these eight analytical books", but each one is nothing but a single namedrop used in reference to the actual subject of the page. Both are completely worthless as sources. You'd have a point if this single character was handpicked from D&D for inclusion in another game, and that the status of being handpicked was documented in a reliable source. TTN (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What, you want an entire game centered around a particular fictional element in order for it to be notable? I know we disagree on notability of fictional elements, but that seems a preposterously high level of coverage to demand. I find what we have demonstrated in this case sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You're talking about one of many trivial characters in an essentially copied and pasted D&D setting under an official license. This single character is not at all special or notable in its inclusion. Looking at just the "Tome of Horrors Revised" index, there are 50-ish demons (out of 400 monsters), all of which I put into Google are directly ported from D&D. As far as I can tel, all or the great majority of the 400 monsters included in that book are also directly ported. That is truly the definition of trivial when comparing that single character to the entire scope of that publisher's work. If you truly think every single one of those warrants an article due to that, then the difference between our two viewpoints is too great for further discussion to have any merit. TTN (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I respectfully disagree with Jclemens; I'm not sure that appearing in third-party games establishes notability any more than a character's cameo in some other work establishes notability. Appearance in third-party games does suggest that there may be some level of notability (perhaps the character was discussed in reviews of the game, or was chosen because they were already iconic?) but we would need sources to demonstrate this. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to list of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons. Ayub407^talk 08:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: deleted by User:RHaworth. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fuad Halim

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

Inadequate claim of notability. Notability is not inherited (from his father or otherwise or from his non-profit, which also probably is not notable). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator. Notability is not inherited. Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent sources with substantial discussion to justify an article. Also promotional (ironic in light of the "selflessly" peacock) Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Rabiega

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against deletion. Vincent Rabiega has completed a transfer to Bradford City A.F.C. and is elegible for selection in this evenings squad against MK Dons. Kcleworth (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Can be recreated if/when he plays. Fenix down (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted in my opinion. The page exists in Polish and should also be kept in English for the time being. He only signed for Bradford City today and was immediately named on the substitutes bench. He is a junior international and is likely to make a first team appearance for his new club imminently which would only result in the page having to be generated again were it to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8060:3100:6144:33A2:2EA7:6406 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See CSD G6 for routine housekeeping. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Innovators

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

The article was moved to a draft, which causes there to be no need for this page at the moment. Woodstop45 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japoodle

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

This appears to be a designer of dog that was made up one day. I can see the breed cross-checked in Twitter and various other social media outlets, but I can't find any obvious news outlets that would enable us to write a good encyclopedia article on this topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability threshold. The only ref presently used that mentions a "Japoodle" is a forum so not a reliable source. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC) For the sake of transparency, I had PROD'd the article.[reply]
Delete appears to be made up, and no evidence of notability. Joseph2302 18:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreliable sources, such as forums and dailymail (tabloid), mean that this topic has little to no credibility. Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Basped

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

Basped does not pass the notability guidelines for gridiron football. His college career was not enough to rise to the level of notability. Beyond this he never played in an actual NFL game. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he meets the first criteria of WP:NGRIDIRON: "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League" RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in the AFL. This nominator seems to be nominating many articles because he doesnt like them, not because they arent notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am nominating articles based on a consistent and reasoned study of who is and who is not notable, not based on "because I don't like them." This tendency to not assume good faith in dealing with those who nominate articles for deletion is what leads to Wikipedia having a poor reputation among the general public because it keeps on a whole slew of worthless articles on non-notabe people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Additionally, he appears to have played a game in the CFL, which also makes him notable per NGRIDIRON. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BU Rob13. Between the AFL and the CFL, he appears to meet the criteria for WP:NGRIDIRON. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NGRIDIRON. This really should be checked before nominating for deletion per WP:BEFORE. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Christopher Barry

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

{{{text}}} Barrybrigade (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Creating deletion discussion for Marion Christopher Barry[reply]

Comment for nom Could you replace the {{text}} tag with your reason for nomination? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2016 (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/2016 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not even sure if Barry would have been notable if he had won the election he ran in, but he lost, so clearly does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, but he does meet WP:GNG. He's notable because of all of the substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources he got. It's all cited in the article, so I don't feel any need to source dump here. I doubt he would've gotten that coverage if he was anybody else's son, but the same could be said for any number of people and that doesn't make them any less notable (see for example, Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep not only as a cautionary tale against drug use, but as a failed politician and the son of a prominent politician, Barry is notable. I usually HATE merged articles, but you could combine him and his father, creating a subsection about Marion Jr. I am strongly against delete however. 205.144.213.202 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion given, seems to be a new account registered today based on complaints of WP:ITN recent deaths nominations here and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article was notable and unquestioned before his death. He passes and now its a possible AfD? There are so many other articles on Wikipedia to consider before this one. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Obviously meets WP:GNG criteria and no reason was given to delete. APK whisper in my ear 03:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:DEL#REASON failure. — Wylie pedia 04:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this nomination seems intended to prevent the page's posting to RD per the new criteria. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain book

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

The lead section merely repeats information from Public domain. The rest is an arbitrary collection of links to articles on books that are in the public domain. There are thousands of books that could potentially be listed here. If we really want to list all public domain books, this should be handled with a category instead. In fact, such a category already exists. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly informed sole contributor User:P2prules. I misinterpreted the "inform AfD monitors" part of the AfD instructions and somehow thought it also informed contributors. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to public domain. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, page should be merged/redirected to public domain. Meatsgains (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually thought about nominating this about a week ago. Fails WP:SALAT--Savonneux (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main difference here is that the page seems to be a more thorough list of books in the public domain, but that's something that might be best served by a category designation, like Category:Books in the public domain in the United States or something along those lines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that things that are public domain in certain countries might not be public domain in others and it just becomes a mess.--Savonneux (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular softwares

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTCATALOG. Indiscriminate list something that can never be reasonably completed and has extremely general criteria for inclusion. Grouping articles by categorization should be sufficient to accomplish the task of this article. Sjrct (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically unmaintanable by definition. We already have a series of "List of X software" articles. shoy (reactions) 14:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, an indiscriminate list with unclear and/or overly-general inclusion criteria. Unsalvageable and redundant given the software list articles and categories already in place.Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is very informative and contains only POPULAR softwares. So Indiscriminate thing does not applies in List of popular softwares. Zafar24Talk 17:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Zafar24 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafar24, how do you determine what is and is not popular software? Is popularity not a nebulous criteria? Sjrct (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, type "List of popular..." into the search window and you'll see they're invariably redirects to a different list or main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjrct, The page is in UNDER CONSTRUCTION TAG, I will add references regarding POPULARITY of each softwares.Zafar24Talk 18:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:OR, as in who determines which softwares (sic) are "popular"? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Music Entertainment

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

DePRODed by COI creator without addressing the issues. Concern was: Cursory search shows no evidence of coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I continue to believe that WP:CORP does not fit record labels well at all, and have tried (and failed) to establish notability criteria for this set of articles. However, by any standard this is a non-notable entity. There is no length of operation, there is no roster of notable artists, there is no indication the label has had any impact on any musical genre or on any cultural set or subset. My searches resulted in no reliable sources whatsoever. The single "blue-link" appears to be a non-notable artist created as part of a walled garden. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty blatantly promotional in the face of lack of notability. I also had to delete the empty category they created for their artists - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The username also gets a block as a role account. Also, they've been creating and recreating A7 on the label's artists, so it was a promotional spam block - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing close to actually establishing substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirgachha Hafizia Madrasa

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

Non-notable primary school (grades 1-5). First I tried redirecting per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, with an explanation to the original author, but they restored the content without discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:VERIFY, let alone our notability guidelines. To support a redirect, I would like to see evidence that the school actually exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NSCHOOLS. Rebb ing 20:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nyuszika7h (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic television

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

None of these are actually called "Catholic television", except perhaps Catholic Television Nigeria, but that doesn't need a disambiguation page. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Oops, I didn't realize at first that CatholicTV might be called this. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful disambiguation page. CatholicTV might also be searched for under this name.Borock (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Fletcher

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

WP:BLP1E This is a person who has attracted attention for a single ephemeral television event, and is unlikely to become anything other than low-profile. KDS4444 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per JPL. Montanabw^(talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 When We Were Kings. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were kings

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

The phrase "We were kings" is not used in Black Egyptian hypothesis, a quick Google search brings up sources related to When We Were Kings. Adding "black egyptian" does not bring up sensible results either. Redirect to When We Were Kings. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. If there exists consensus, possibly early close and redirect per WP:BOLD. Don't think there needs to be a full AfD discussion for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave & Chris Show!

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

The article on this obscure program has multiple issues that have not been addressed since they were first raised seven years ago. Research does not find anything to support the subject's notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Internet radio programs are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just because they exist — and the only source cited here is the primary source webpage of the local terrestrial station that purportedly carried it before it went internet, which has been flagged as not even verifying that claim. But what it takes to get something like this into Wikipedia is reliable source coverage about it in media not directly affiliated with it, and none of that has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justifide

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable band with this article & another about them reuniting, but Wikipedia isn't the news per WP:NOTNEWS. Overall, fails WP:BAND. JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the reunion seems to have led to a five-track EP, made with crowdfunding support. There's a couple of paragraphs about them reuniting on page 61 of the January 2015 issue of HM magazine, which focuses on Christian metal, but nothing substantive. KaisaL's comments in the first AfD nomination just a month ago seem sensible enough: the article really needs the attention of editors who know more about this music genre. If it is kept, I do think the articles on their two albums should probably be merged into the band article. Richard3120 (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow keep. Band does appear to have been prominent enough in their brief run to justify inclusion. It's not a ground-breaking source of course, but the fact their albums have double-figure reviews on Amazon from the early 2000s is a good base indicator of prominence at the time, and if it had been ten years later I think there'd be much more reliable material. One other website here states, "Christian Rock fans from the early to mid 2000's will surely remember the band Justifide". While again I do not take this source as especially significant, it's the sort of generic content that leads me to believe this band should be included - and that the issue may just be that their early split makes it difficult to find verifiable content. It might be worth pinging any experts we may have on Christian rock music. KaisaL (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My above comment is word-for-word what I said one month ago. KaisaL (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a comment. The band does not have a large entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Not many other sources, but two reviews and an article at http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/search/?q=Justifide and two staff reviews and one reader review at http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/justifide.asp . For the record, I was a Christian rock fan from the 2000s, and a DJ from earlier, and I had to look them up to see if they actually existed. As for the comment, the previous AfD, also opened by @JudeccaXIII:, was closed as no consensus one month ago. Why does JudeccaXIII get a free ride in re-nominating? The nomination should have been closed immediately and JudeccaXIII warned. I would advise all admins and non-admins to not allow editors to continue to nominate articles until they get their way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is what WP:BEFORE is supposed to prevent BTW. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're about to start a crusade, good luck to you then. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not substantially contested. Can be userfied on request and possibly recreated following LaMona's advice. Sandstein 20:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Ransom (Bill) Campbell

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

Non-notable architect lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not much that one can find for this North Carolinian modernist residential architect. Too bad. Appears to be another case of an accomplished individual who just doesn't happen to me our benchmarks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my name is George Smart, executive director of the architecture nonprofit North Carolina Modernist Houses. We've researched biographies of 200 North Carolina architects, like Bill Campbell, involved in the mid-century Modernist movement. We'd like to start posting their histories to Wikipedia. All have passed away, so we don't run afoul of policies regarding living persons. Just like basketball and barbeque, North Carolina has a huge tradition of innovative residential architecture. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.168.100 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George, may I suggest that you take any articles you would like to create through the wp:Articles for creation process. There you would have learned that you cannot have an article without references, and you would have had a chance to fix that without risking deletion. Userfy. Also note that User:NC Modernist Houses may be a violation of wp:Username policy as usernames cannot represent a group - they must be individual. LaMona (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Rocha

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. All of the coverage is trivial - a paragraph at best. She clearly fails the other 11 criteria. MSJapan (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the coverage is the standard music blog/website stuff that involves sharing streams of new songs. It's essentially placement secured by PR agencies that send press releases to secure almost copy-and-paste style coverage. Bo Rocha is represented, I believe, by Inside Slash Out, who have some quite prominent clients that make it in such website's best interests to plug their newer artists. But it's irrelevant coverage and a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. KaisaL (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that the sources cited are not WP:INDEPENDENT and that there's been a WP:COI in the development of this article. Do you have any evidence to back these assertions? ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in three music magazines or their associate websites cited in article. These appear to be reliable sources. Although coverage is brief, it is not trivial and so meets WP:SIGCOV. Don't overthink things people, just follow the notability guidelines. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're trying to distinguish "brief" from "trivial" for purposes of determining notability, I don't think you're the best person to tell others not to overthink. I'd also point out that you deprodded this in the first place, so it's more about "make me right" than "follow the guidelines" - there are at least three other people who disagree with you. MSJapan (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I beleive there's an important difference between brief and trivial. Publication of a brief piece about the subject is potential evidence of notability. A trivial mention in a piece about another subject is not evidence of notability per WP:SIGCOV. This discussion is about consensus, not !vote counting. Your position here, which seems to be more about me personally and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE than deletion policy, does not help build consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you don't understand the notability policy in the subject area, and repointing it as a "personal problem" isn't going to address that deficiency. An actually notable artist doesn't need to rely solely on subjective judgment of "brief" vs "trivial" in relation to coverage; there are 12 criteria for a reason, and failing 11 of them is a pretty strong indication of a lack of notability. The reason being, if an artist objectively charts or wins an award, or releases several albums on a major label, or get s a song in a film, they get more coverage as a result of that exposure. So going the other way around and saying that an artist is notable solely for getting (semantics aside) "minimal coverage", despite not having major releases, winning awards, getting on the charts, or anything else besides some hype is really a pretty weak argument. MSJapan (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting any of the 12 points in WP:NMUSIC establishes notability. Achieving this by meeting WP:GNG (point #1) makes a strong argument, in my opinion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the brief mentions met GNG, which they do not. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've called coverage "trivial". The only policy that I can think of that would exclude "trivial" coverage is the "trivial mention" discussed in WP:SIGCOV. I do not beleive that applies here as the sources are about the subject, not a mention-in-passing of the subject while covering something else. It's fine if we disagree about this but I don't really understand your position and would like to know what policies you are using to support it. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry but this is a far cry from passing GNG. Firstly all 3 sources are really brief - like the only information we get is that she is a singer who released this album. Out of the 5 sources in the article I found 2 are repeat links, so essentially we have 3 sources. Of of these 3, this is essentially rehashing Fader. The other coverage is in Vice. Bot the Fader and Vice coverage hardly talk about the person - in fact they are the kind of brief press releases (4-5 sentences long) which are sent out to various music websites. Searching more, I see similar content on other "online music sites". Its pretty clear these are press releases sent out en masse. The subject btw wouldn't pass WP:MUSICBIO by any chance. I also feel this is WP:TOOSOON considering that the subject only launched the first work in November 2015. Delete as fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a case of WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have it's own article here and it fails WP:MUSICBIO. There should be some claim of significance of the subject otherwise it should be speedly deleted under the criteria of A7. Ayub407^talk 08:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolia Whitinger

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

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Article_that_needs_attention. Fails GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Article heavily edited by the subject's son, pursuing a very clear agenda to expose the University of Texas for organ harvesting practises, or something like that (feel free to read the 4700 words and explain it to me!). FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 11:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the individual is not notable. The scandal might be, but that isn't a reason to include this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG to me, although per FoCuSandLeArN's cmt above I agree its possible parts of the article might be useful to cover the scandal that occurred re the Willed Body Program. Anotherclown (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; reads like a passing local interest story and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is either using Wikipedia to advance an agenda, and/or a case of too much detail on a non-notable individual. Material may belong in another Wikipedia article relating to body donation or body trafficking but that's another issue. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sense of the discussion that the subject was not notable independent of ONEEVENT. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sign

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

PROD was removed by article creator, who claimed Sign was awarded an Emmy and Murrow. However, neither award was for Sign or in his name. A google search reveals nothing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article creator's claims are clearly false and Sign is only noted for one incident. To me, that's not enough. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while he is noted for one incident, it is a rather major incident with national coverage referring to his involvement in breaking the story. There are many more sources than the one in the article. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] and he was interviewed about this on the O'Reilly Factor. Notable under WP:BASIC, with note that WP:ONEEVENT says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." A major story in the 2016 US presidential campaign is highly significant and his role within it is large. The article certainly needs expansion. MB 18:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E. The "one event" mentioned earlier doesn't even have its own article, and I don't consider other media sources' coverage of his coverage of a story to be independent, no matter how many of them picked it up. shoy (reactions) 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete after reading this AFD, I went to the article to see what major story this journalist broke, it was good reporting, but it was hardly a major event. And, even if it had been, as User:Shoy correctly states, there would have to be significant coverage of his role in that event.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Scholz

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

I am the subject of the article Philip Scholz and I wish to see it removed. The information is out-of-date and no longer relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimfan0412 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC) — Swimfan0412 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anon IP editors claiming to be the subject have repeatedly tagged the article for deletion. The were asked to take the issue to OTRS. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of those messages. In any case, I am the original author of this article 204.126.240.6 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)swimfan0412[reply]
I would still like to see this removed as per my reasons stated above. 204.126.240.6 (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)swimfan0412[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. So as a Paraolympian - winning and even having set records there is no reason to delete the article. What I do understand is that random outdated details of the subjects personal life which have no bearing on his Olympian career should go, and I have trimmed the article accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 09:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being out of date is not a reason for deletion. If there was entirely untrue information, and hence WP:BLP concerns that would be a different matter but as it stands this is an article on a clearly notable athlete which merely requires a bit of updating and tidying - Basement12 (T.C) 09:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All it needs cleanup, not deletion. The subject is notable. Ayub407^talk 08:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as nothing else has been suggested so far, and the fact there's several works is enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manami Ui

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is less an actor than a model and a TV talent. There is quite a lot of coverage of her in the entertainment and sports press in Japan, helped in part by the fact she married a J-League player: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], etc. I believe this is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Meets GNG. Cavarrone 14:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: While notability is not inherited by her marriage to someone famous, I'd say her TV credits are sufficient to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 16:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Michitaro has identified that there is enough to satisfy GNG. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Substantially unopposed. Sandstein 19:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odia calendar

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

A Google Books search for this concept turns up 10 hits. Of these, 2 are dictionaries, 2 are not searchable for this term, and 5 are accidental hits of one kind or another. Only one book appears to contain this term, and that book, by Dr. Bigyan Badu, is self-published. It is possible that there really is such a calendar, but the paucity of sources available along with the single website given as a source in the article suggest that its notability is not supported by reliable, independent, verifiable sources. KDS4444 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name of the state was changed from Orissa to Odisha, and the name of its language from Oriya to Odia, in 2011. I haven't yet determined whether there are enough sources under Oriya calendar to support a standalone article like Tamil calendar or Bengali calendar, but Google book search snippets support at least a redirect to the general article of Hindu calendar. See also Pana Sankranti, and references, for description of a holiday marking the beginning of the New Year in the traditional Odia calendar. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Addendum: The following Google snippet suggests that The Sūryavaṁśi Gajapatis of Orissa (1957) might be one particularly helpful English source if anyone has library access: "To know the significance of this Anka reckoning it is essential here to explain in brief some of the peculiarities of the Oriya calendar. Peculiarities of dating in Orissa : — Like the Tamils and the Bengalis the Oriya people also follow the solar ...." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It is always difficult to judge a stub, but if expanded into a full article it might be worth having, provided it is in fact different from other Hindu calendars. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FSUU Morelos Gym

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

It's a sports hall in a minor university. Any content here, could be moved to the university's article. There is a major lack of notability. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article which fails WP:GEOFEAT. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant content to the article about the university. The gymnasium itself is not notable. Lepricavark (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing worth merging, aqnd no needfor a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. this gym is no notability to anyone outside the university. LibStar (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Steinbeck

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

autobio-notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nard & B

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Little depth of coverage. No awards. This BLPs one source is primary. A search for reliable sources yielded one short secondary source here, and a one sentence mention here and here. They did not write or perform any of these songs listed in the article; they are the record producers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Graham Barnfield. Sandstein 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Marmite Sisters

AfDs for this article:

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

Filtered google searches offer no significant coverage in any RS. One notable member is not sufficient to pass WP:NBAND#6. No other criteria of WP:NBAND apparently met. —swpb^T 19:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep or~~ merge to Graham Barnfield. The main source appears to be a print source, and given this group was active in the 80s and 90s, I am not surprised that Google is light. I'd AGF on the print source. At the very least, merge and preserve the article history in case someone wants to do more work on it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the "print source" that I believe is being referred to above, "The Mish-MASH Dictionary of Marmite", is about the food spread Marmite; there is no indication to be found that it even mentions this band, and we obviously can't "AGF" that it offers significant coverage of the band, because 1) It's given as a "see also" entry, not a reference, so even the article itself isn't claiming it supports notability; and 2) as we all know, AGF is about editor behavior, and is a complete non-sequitur when it comes to establishing the validity of references. One would expect someone using the book as an argument for keeping to have checked on that first, since it totally invalidates the case being made. Regardless, the count of reliable+significant coverage sources remains at zero. I would remind everyone that misrepresentation is not only likely to result in trouble (especially when it's a pattern), it's also a very unsuccessful strategy for garnering support in an AfD, where, of course, the validity of arguments is what matters. —swpb^T 12:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the personalized commentary. 1) was enough. 2) is a personal attack. I still say merge, no sense leaving a redlink for the article to be created again. Montanabw^(talk) 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redlink is not a viable concern either, since, as you can check for yourself, there is exactly one link in mainspace to this band, and it's from the band's one apparently independently notable member. The value of the edit history is the same as the likelihood that this decades-ago band will gain future notability; that is to say, not high enough to be worth discussing. —swpb^T 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merging helps preserve article history and avoids AfD, round 3, 4 and 5. I'm moving my !vote to Merge, as I feel that is the most appropriate outcome here. Montanabw^(talk) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just explained that there is no value in preserving this article's history or content, because it's not notable. You didn't respond to that at all. You've still given no valid reason for your position. —swpb^T 17:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You mistake content for subject. An article subject has to be notable; article content merely has to be verifiable, a much lower bar. If content is properly merged into another, already-notable, article, there is no requirement that such content be "notable", but there is a requirement that it is attributed. Does that clarify it for you? --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 13:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Graham Barnfield. The band isn't independently notable, IMHO, but it's quite usual to include some details of a band in the biography of a notable band-member. Not all of the article content needs to be merged in, but the MusicBrainz source is often used in music articles as reliable for discographies, etc. so there's definitely enough verifiable material to make a merge with attribution worthwhile. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having reviewed the edit history, I was surprised to find that of the 55 edits, not a single one by a registered editor added any content. It seems that any of the content may be merged without requiring attribution in this case because we cannot accurately attribute to IPs.--RexxS (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my !vote to Merge, above. Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Graham Barnfield. They were a bit of a laugh but never really amounted to much, with only a few releases on small indie labels, usually their own if I remember correctly, but as there's a mention of the band on the Barnfield page a redirect would be in order. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Software Enterprises

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous version of this article was deleted following AfD five days ago. Note also this comment that the revised article takes account of the AfD discussion. The most substantial source is the 2008 Simon Holloway article on the firm and its product set: I don't know whether that was under consideration in the previous AfD. I also added reference to an earlier shorter piece from Israel Business Today. Routine announcements can also be found (such as the dividend notice also referenced in the article). My own view is neutral, and while reticent about weighing down the AfD log with yet another entry, procedurally I feel that the proximity in time since the previous AfD should trigger reconsideration to either confirm or override its decision. Notifying previous participants @Maproom, SwisterTwister, K.e.coffman, and Arthistorian1977:. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this time. Last time I was agree with deletion because the article was written as pure Press Release. Currently it needs some rework, but there is no look of advertisement. The company itself is kind of notable in Israel with quite enough information I can find in Hebrew. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm essentially only finding theirs and republished PR. SwisterTwister talk 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 13:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not trying very hard, then. A quick sample: [37],[38], [39] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I updated the article, adding refs from solid sources. Company is notable, although it has suffered ups and downs (like many companies). Data can added. I see no reason for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as per improved content and sources, and being WP:LISTED in Israel. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ke Coffman and Geewhiz, above. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some improvement, but the company is notable. It's on Tel Aviv Stock Exchange TA-100 Index. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has not actually substantially changed regarding convincing substance, the listed links are still too bare and none of it comes close to insinuating independent notability. This alone cannot be based for keeping, thus "needs improvement [so can be kept]" is not a convincing statement if none of the alleged improvements to be made are not listed and assessed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lewandowska

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

The article have unclear references in foreign language. The biography itself is not notable enough. The athlete is claimed to have won several awards but none of them are mentioned nor cited. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. References in Polish are as good as references in English. Absence of English references (or even of English coverage) can not be a reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Foreign language refs are totally acceptable. This should be considered through policies such as WP:NSPORT. The article states "multiple medals" ("During her career she won three medals in the world championships seniors, six European Championships medals in different age categories (including two European Championships seniors), and 29 Polish Championship medals:"), so probably notable. pl:Anna Lewandowska wiki has more details, seems like she got Bronze and Silver medal in some international competitions and some gold in European ones, through since NSPORT does not mention karate I cannot say whether that suffices, hence my week keep. PS. Most of the coverage I see in Polish media is from gossip/celebrity magazines due to her marriage to a notable sport figure, through whether that helps much given notability is not inherited, and the low reliability of gossip magazines, that's another story. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NSPORT doesn't mention Karate, but that is immaterial because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. World championship medals clearly meet the spirit of that guideline, and the first of the references in the article, which is far from "unclear", confirms that Lewandowska is a world championship medallist. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As per AfD nominator, I take back my request of deleting this article. Remove the AfD tag please & replace it with Template:Needs English sources. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigma8

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

Article created by paid editor and expanded by another paid editor. Prod removed by article creator (paid editor). Article is referenced to two press releases, a primary source, and a commercial site listing it as the best (of two) agencies in Teheran. It is a small (8 employees apparently) company which has apparently received one award and most importantly no significant attention in reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:CORP. Fram (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is 1st article of mine to be created as a paid editor. I have created more than 50 notable articles before that and I know what WP:CORP is. I've written it from WP:NPOV. Whereas other paid editor is concerned, he was hired to make name correction in page. I took this paid project just because it is notable and needs to be created. It is only Iranian agency to be member of AAAA, moreover it is awarded by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The article does require further references to verify, doesn't mean we AfD it. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the first Iranian member of the AAAA is not giving any notability if it hasn't been extensively remarked upon in the press (excluding press releases). The AAAA is a trade association, not a Hall of Fame. For the award, it is very unclear how often it is given, i.e. how exceptional it is, and again whether it has gotten any attention. As I couldn't find other good references for this, AfD is exactly the way to go. Please, in the future if you make new articles as a paid editor, use the Draft namespace instead where neutral editors can check your work. Fram (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Clearly passes WP:GNG and also meets Wikipedia notability standards. Most of content is covered by references.New baba (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- In what way does it "clearly" pass GNG? There is not a single source there that establish notability, the sources are two press releases, a listing on a trade association, and a listing as one of two Teheran-based agencies in a commercial site. Fram (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is to be kept then it needs to be on the basis of notability in Iran, rather than via the cultural cringe of being the first Iranian agency to be a member of an American trade association. Does it have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in Persian? I note fron another discussion that the article creator appears to think that sources have to be in English. That is not so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sir this is Wikipedia English so need to have English references in order to understand & review by neutral user. Are you trying to say that I should've add persian references so that a reviewer has to translate the whole article in english & find the part where it mentions "Zigma8" and what about it. I know as per WP:VUE english is preferred that's what I've done.
      - My comment was intended to help you save this article. Evidence of notability in Iran, by means of significant coverage in independent reliable sources in any language, will count for a lot more than being a member of an American trade association. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - standard searches do not reveal significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable ad agency and no indications of notability. I'm not seeing enough independent coverage to meet GNG & CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this has clearly only been started for PR uses, nothing at all comes close to both non-PR and then also convincing substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Akame ga Kill! characters#Night Raid. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akame (Akame ga kill!)

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

Unremarkable fictional character lacking coverage in reliable sources. If it weren't for the improper capitalization I would have suggested a redirect to Akame ga Kill!, but no. Earlier PROD was removed by an IP address. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Akame ga Kill!, nothing additional in this article Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Akame ga Kill! characters#Night Raid. This is where she is listed, and the most info can be found about her. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Akame ga Kill! characters#Night Raid.per Knowledgekid87. Alternate capitalizations are fine for redirects. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Akame ga Kill! characters. However, it is worth noting that the article hasn't been fully created yet. If the author comes up with more information, I would recommend a Merge and Redirect. Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Userfy. This is nowhere ready for a separate character article. Even the List of characters is not sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree with the users' comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gita Jayakumar

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

A biography of an alternative health/fitness coach; the article was created by one new editor and another has twice removed maintenance tags concerning notability, advertising tone and unreliable sources. Searches, including the customised Indian newspaper search, are returning nothing about this person. That leaves the given references: there are primary sources such as articles the subject has written on a "Red Elephant Foundation" blog and New Age Wellness World, a short promotional piece at "META-Health University" and a Youtube clip showing the subject working at a Mrs India event. None of these strike me as reliable 3rd party sources. The most substantial appears to be the article about the subject on an "Incredible Women of India" blog, which is bylined. At most, these confirm the subject as someone going about her business, whose wares are promoted in the article; I see nothing to demonstrate biographical notability to merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. This is essentiallly a promo-piece of no notability. I suspect autobiog.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is overly promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources currently used in the article appeared to be self-published or poor quality. There is a link to The Hindu website, but it is simply a brief mention in their Metro Plus supplement from 2004 that covered a mother and daughter competition. She fails to pass WP:GNG and notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of films considered the best (by year)

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

Page almost qualifies for WP:G7 per Special:Diff/716004514, but thought I should bring this to AfD. The list, while cited, mostly cites box office numbers and critics site scores, while not clearly explaining why the movies of each year are "considered the best". The list remains largely incomplete, and has not been worked on by the creator/main contributor for half a year. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had previously nominated this for PROD. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and agree that it should be deleted Willowandglass (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of critics have top ten yearly lists, but combining them into some superlist would be WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definite WP:OR, and the creator themselves has no objection to the deltion (see above). Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criterion "considered the best" is impossibly vague. By whom? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:NCYC #2, rode in a monument race (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barton (cyclist)

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

The article is based on a single source. Beyond this Barton's competition does not look to involve any significant wins at top level competitions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He rode in the 2008 Liège–Bastogne–Liège, finishing 24th, which meets WP:NCYC #2 (rode in a Grand Tour or Monument), with LBL being a Monument race. Just spotted he also rode in the 2011 Giro d'Italia too (per this), which is a Grand Tour. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. In other words, topics and subjects can meet WP:GNG despite limited sources within articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCYC as he rode in the 2008 Liège–Bastogne–Liège and 2011 Giro. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Igor I. Barinov

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

While Barinov has apparently written multiple books, and several articles, I do not think hiscontributions currently add up enough to pass academic notability criteria 1, and he is no where near passing any other academic notability criteriad John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing at all close for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Too soon. He has produced a doctoral thesis, then three articles and a book based on it. There is also one other book. This is not really enough for him to be notable YET. TOO SOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Banai

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

This article only has one source, so it clearly does not pass the GNG requirement of having multiple sources. Nothing in Banai's musical career indicates passing any notability requirement for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. In other words, topics and subjects can meet WP:GNG despite limited sources within articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before people list articles for deletion it wouldn't hurt if they did a quick search before reaching for the delete button. The singer is notable, from a well-known musical family, and his work has received coverage in reputable sources, some of which I have now added.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I added a Google search template to the top of this page with Banai's name in Hebrew, the number of potential news sources grew astronomically. I think he satisfies GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In addition to English sources, added by Geewhiz, these sources in Hebrew show he's quite notable: [40], [41], [42], [43].Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin as a Heritage Language in Toronto

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

Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Heritage Language in Toronto, this is a poorly sourced WP:ESSAY with some POV undertones about a topic that doesn't warrant its own standalone article. There are just seven sources here, of which five are primary ones -- such as raw demographic stats, job listings on a jobs board and the self-published websites of community institutions -- which cannot assist notability at all, and the two citations that actually count as reliable sources are both about the Chinese Canadian community in general rather than having any content about anything specific to Toronto, so even the RSes here don't actually support the topic. I can find no other cases, besides the one I mentioned above that's already been deleted, where we have any "specific language in individual city" articles for any other combination of language and city. Bearcat (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a POV essay, sources are not about this topic specifically. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ESSAY. Blythwood (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ESSAY. Worth noting that there are sources here that might develop the Chinese Canadians article. Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in both the second and third tiers of German football and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Bagceci

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

While back in about 2006 Bagceci played with a team that would later be part of a fully pro league, the team was not part of a fully pro league, so he has never played a game in a fully pro-league competition and so does not pass the notability guidleines for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the link given in the article, he played for 1. FC Heidenheim in 2014/15 (20 games 1 goal), when they were in the fully professional 2. Bundesliga. —Kusma (t·c) 08:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, the notability guideline for footballers. According to the external link present in the article, subject has played for five full seasons in the 3. Liga and one in the 2. Bundesliga, both of which are listed as fully professional leagues. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Badiel

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

Badiel won the Miss Afreica competition, one we do not even have an article on in Wikipedia. Beyond that she wrote a children's book with another person, that may have been published a few months ago. Just not at the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per having received significant coverage in two reliable sources. The subject is also a co-founder of Models 4 Water, a non-profit organization focused on clean water issues in Burkino Faso, and is also involved with the Georgie Badiel Foundation (link) Below are some sources I have found thus far. Perhaps other users may be able to find more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Publishers Weekly (significant coverage)
Harper's Bazaar (significant coverage)
Daily Observer (short article, 3 ¶)
Teen Vogue (3 ¶ accessible, can't get the slideshow to work to view the rest)
Italian Vogue (3 ¶)
Essence
Bloomberg (primary source)

Keep even the simplest news search establishes notability [44]. @Johnpacklambert:, I can see that you looked at the beauty pageant and author aspects of her career, and quite reasonably judged them insufficient. Perhaps yo want to look at the search NorthAmerica ran and consider revising your opinion?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - First she founded the non profit for the water considerations, second she is both a former Miss Africa and an international model with a considerable portfolio as well as a children's book author and former intimate of Vladislav Doronin.<. Second this is the third article in a row which has been nominated for deletion without the creator (me) being informed. The person(S) doing this went up and down my user page nominating these articles without allowing me the chance to defend them---- This is a case of clear notability she is not just a beauty queen and model she is somebody involvded on every level to address a crisis in her homeland and does so through both her occupation and her art. Masterknighted (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent sources, plenty of articles, has done a lot of work besides winning a beauty pageant, but also the pageant itself appears to have been a major. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 11:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Austin

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

AAustin does not meet the notability guidelines for Gridiron football. He never played in a professional game, and the coverage of him as a college player is not enough to rise to the level of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did appear in one game for the Lions in 2013 [45]--Yankees10 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yankees10 as a WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Austin played in the NFL for the Detroit Lions in 2013. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirmed it was a playoff game against the Cowboys.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. As I said on another AfD on a similar player, this should have been looked into before nominating per WP:BEFORE. Smartyllama (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Aufner

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

Aufner was a college football player which in and of itself is not enough to establish notability. He last played college football no less than 2 years ago, in all likelihood, and the only source is the player bio from his university. He totally fails the notability guidelines for gridiron football. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few passing mentions, but little else in coverage. Did not even sign with a NFL team as an undrafted free agent after his college career ended, so I don't see any claims of notability. Prevan (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete offensive linemen get bruises, not news coverage. It's rare for an OL to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and I don't see it happening here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played pro football and thus fails WP:NGRIDIRON. No major awards, and I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources such that he does not pass either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG either. Paul is also correct: whether fair or not, offensive linemen just don't get much coverage as compared to other position players. Cbl62 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, passes WP:Prof#C3--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Jane Howlett

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: straightforward A7 for me Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 05:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom.--Savonneux (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having been elected a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 2014,[46] meets WP:PROF criterion #3. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Author has commented in good faith on the teahouse regarding preserving the article. If the decision is to delete, please consider moving to their sandbox and contacting them to explain. TimothyJosephWood 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT3. Membership of the AAS clearly fulfills WP:PROF#C3. The very first reference in the article said as much, so a little bit more diligence by the nominator and the delete !voters might have been in order, to avoid biting the new editor of this article. Joe Roe (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their election to the Australian Academy of Science satisfies WP:PROF C3 as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As meeting WP:PROF - this nomination was one of several for Australian academics, as explained here - Arjayay (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nozomi Aso

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

There is no indication that Aso comes anywhere near meeting the notability requirements for pornogrpahic actresses. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, no sources or any indication of notability in the article. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Japanese-language wiki article is mostly a credit list and makes no real claims of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is basically a stub. Plus she has no major awards nor any other notable presence in the media, so she clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 18 August 2016, 15:32 CET.
delete Epic fails at meeting the GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, as having no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 04:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmad Ali

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

There are several brigadiers in the Indian Army and several hundred pro vice chancellors. No notable references and non notable person. InspireTheWorld (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2016 (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/2016 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep those who reach the rank of brigadier are default notable. He passes the notability guidelines for military personnel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but improve. There are numerous sources attesting to notability, but the prose is horrendous. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commonwealth brigadiers qualify as general officers under WP:SOLDIER. They are technically not general officers, but are entirely equivalent to brigadier generals, who are. We have always considered that sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One star general equivalent. Easily passes notability. -O.R.^Comms 23:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as passes WP:SOLDIER which initself is a far too restrictive guideline IMO. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Donald Trump

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

There are sources about specific instances of death threats, but the topic fails WP:GNG. Specific instances do not add up to a broader topic without WP:OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like WP:SYNTH Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty clearly WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 04:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very name of the article is below notability guidelines. Generally we would have the article named "assasination attempts". Now we may be able to find reliable sources that say that someone who had a large knife, and was within 20 miles of Trump, and said on facebook he wanted to assasinate Trump, was engaged in an assasination attempt, but I think to be even marginally notable we have to have someone somewhere saying what is involved is an attempt in some way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROFRINGE, WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Man Bandz

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

Contested PROD by page creator. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Only third party source I could find is one small profile in Crunk Atlanta, which I don't think meets the notability criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 04:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, fails both WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG Meters (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 phobias. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iophobia

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

The usual few hits on lists of supposed phobias, plus a bunch of hyphenated fragments. In other words, no RS. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a dictionary definition with nothing more, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Reidrect to Toxiphobia ("Toxiphobia (less commonly known as iophobia[1])") or List of phobias (although yuck to the precedent of throwing things into that list based just on their existence in a dictionary) - per WP:DICDEF, WP:MEDRS, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of phobias; the usual thing done with attested dicdef phobias. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of phobias per HyperGaruda. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge. List of phobias is a list of notable phobias. If this isn't notable, it shouldn't listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of phobias, probably unsutable to serve as an article by itself Inter&anthro (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkimedes Arguelyes

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

Arguelyes is a road racing cyclist. There is only one source on the article, from the team he competes with no less. He is listed as having competed in several competitions, but not having won any, and never coming in overall higher than 5th place. TO me he does not look to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCYC as he competed in the 2011 Tour de Pologne, a UCI World Tour race, per this, finishing 106th. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits WP:NCYC per above. Smartyllama (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I must admit I'm not entirely convinced that merely having taken part in a single UCI World Tour race should really be enough by itself, but he was in a top-level team at the time (see 2011 Team Katusha season) and he also competed in the 2010 UCI Road World Championships – Men's under-23 road race, finishing 33rd. The basic facts of his career contained in the page are verifiable from any of the various cycling results websites that come up when you google his name. Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni-Marie Wiseman

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single-station television journalist, whose strongest claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST is winning a "Best Local TV Personality" reader poll in an alt-weekly ten years ago. As is so often the case, this reads far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article -- and outside of the blurb in the reader poll, the sourcing here is entirely primary with no evidence of reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG. As always, local television journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- RS coverage about them, in media other than their own paycheck provider, that supports a JOURNALIST pass must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete journalists connected with only one local station are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable news anchor that fails GNG. My searches do not turn up anything better than what's already in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Clare

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

I still confirm my PROD which was removed with the basis that "one book at WorldCat is enough". SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her debut novel has not even been published. No strong indication that when it is it will be enough to make her notable. For that matter, with the expected publication date sometime next year, it might even get moved back, and there is some greater than zero possibility the novel will never be published. At best this is a case of too soon, but a very loose too soon, in that Clare may at some point be notable, but we are by no means at that point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One book is enough , if it is every published by a reputable publisher and attracts some degree of critical notice. There is no evidence that this is the case here.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artyom Antipov

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Artyom Antipov

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

The league he plays with is not the top professional league in his country. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Footy .Note Russian Second Division or Russian Professional Football League is a fully Professional league as per WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Anishin

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

Anishin does not play at the top level of competition in his country as required for notability for footballers John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable per WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 04:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Footy .Note Russian Second Division or Russian Professional Football League is a fully Professional league as per WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Aleksandrovich Andreyev

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

The team he plays with is not part of the top league of national competition in their country as required by the footballer notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Footy .Note Russian Second Division or Russian Professional Football League is a fully Professional league as per WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nícolas Andrade

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

Andrade plays for a 2nde tier Italian team. There is no evidence presented that he has ever played for a 1st tier fully pro team, which is the notability guideline for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Footy has played in Serie B a fully professional league as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Anderson

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

Anderson does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for gridiron football players. While he was on a pro-teams active roster, there is no evidence he ever actually played in a game. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to his profile on NFL.com, he played in two games. This should have been looked into before nominating per WP:BEFORE. Smartyllama (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama as a WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was filed as the 4th nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching's Secret (3rd nomination) does not exist. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret

AfDs for this article:

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

I honestly wish this had been relisted as I missed listing my comments analyzing the listed sources, the 1 article listed is again simply PR, none of it actually substantial and I myself had speedied this as G11 with DGG and I still consider this PR, none of this is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. started off highly promotional , was then reduced to a stub overbalanced by the one decently sourced iter available, a negative incident. There is no basis for either this article, a purely directory stub, or the article as submitted. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mall, Damodar (2014). Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India. Haryana, India: Random House India (Random House). ISBN 8184006497. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The book notes:
  
  So here's a trick question: Which is the cuisine with a uniformly high pan-Indian appeal? In other words, which type of cuisine can now be found all across the country and has a uniform acceptance rate? ... Ajay Gupta, a food entrepreneur from Mumbai, had asked me the question about the truly pan-Indian cuisine. When he saw my confusion, his tongue-in-cheek but accurate answer was, 'Indian Chinese. Indian Chinese is popular as street food, restaurant fare, and now also at home, across the country, from Aizawl to Jaisalmer and from Leh to Quilon,' he chuckled.
  He should know, for Ajay has been selling the Ching's Secret brand of Chinese food products for fifteen years in India. When he launched the brand, he clearly saw the popularity of Chinese food in India.
  ...
  To add to the charisma of the brand, Ajay decided to explore one more aspect of the middle-class Indian kitchen. While the woman of the house wanted to be adventurous in her cooking, she had no idea what this entailed. For instance, most women were aware of Hakka noodles as one of the chief dishes of a Chinese meal, but not what went with it. Was it enough to have a sweet and sour vegetable? Was something more required? Ching's Secret found itself in the position of not merely an innovator, but a mentor. When one of the largest retailers in the country suggested that Ching's Secret present itself as a total solution, Ajay knew exactly what he should do. And since this retailer was a brand partner as well, Ajay got the freedom to represent all Chinese cuisine ingredients together on the shelf as a single section. Now the customer saw not Ching's Secret Hakka noodles in one aisle and Ching's Secret soya sauce in another, but the entire range together, at one single place. The power of suggestion became a multiplier in itself. The supermarket shelves 'told' the customer to buy sweet corn soup to go along with the main meal. Ching's Secret no longer stood for 'ingredients for Chinese cooking', but a do-it-yourself Chinese menu. The product range opened the door for any woman who wished to prepare a full Indian Chinese meal at home. No wonder the brand succeeded in the face of giants like Knorr and Maggi. The difference between them and Ching's was that while they offered a product, Ching's—the Chinese expert—offered a cuisine solution.
  Today the brand advertises on TV, was a sponsor for the popular reality show, Indian Idol, sells in both urban and rural markets and has a huge presence in all kirana stores, but Ching's Secret was probably the first mainstream brand in India that was built in modern retail stores and then moved to traditional retail. It successfully tapped into the access and depth of the large, self-service supermarkets, and capitalized on the growth these offered to its advantage. The mantra of Ching's Secret's success is now being replicated by other newage marketers ...
2. Dasgupta, Surajeet (2009-09-21). "Chinese, made in India". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  When Ajay Gupta, promoter of Capital Foods, decided to sell instant noodles and soups under the brand name Ching’s Secret, many thought he wouldn’t be able to digest the diversification.
  ...
  So Ching’s has been positioned differently. Sensing that 90 per cent of Maggi’s sales comes from its ‘masala’-favoured pack, Ching’s went for the kill with Chinese-flavoured noodles. Gupta says he has seen people lapping up “Chinese pao bhajis” and Manchurian sweet corn in Mumbai’s Udupi restaurants.
  ...
  Ching’s is also targeted at people in the age group of 18-25 (as against Maggi’s target group of children only) who prefer spicy flavours and look at noodles as a full meal rather than just a snack.
  It was also felt that Ching’s needs to leverage the Chinese connection and one way to do that was through packaging. So the colour coding and the graphics were essentially meant to symbolize this.
  The article includes criticism of the company:
  But his critics say he may remain just a small niche player. Says a senior executive of an FMCG company: “It’s just another brand with some initial novelty value. The problem will be how to sustain it. Some years ago, Gold Café, a coffee brand from Indodan Industries, had shocked Nestle by taking away market share. Today it is dead and gone”.
3. Chamikutty, Preethi (2010-06-23). "Instant noodles: Rivals turn the heat on Nestle's Maggi". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  I found the author name from this article^WebCite.
  The article notes:
  
  Other brands that may not have the huge money power of the multinational giants but which are piggybacking on the opportunity afforded by modern trade are Ching's Secret and Smith & Jones from Capital Foods and the Future Group's private label brand Tasty Treat.
  ...
  Ching's Secret has a long, hoary history trying to take on the might of Maggi nearly a decade and a half ago with a more traditional Chinese noodle offering. While this found no takers, it is still part of the arsenal at Capital Foods. The marketer is fielding both Ching's Secret as well as Smith & Jones, with the former aimed at a more youthful demographic.
  ...
  The masala flavour is being keenly contested by Captial Foods as well via its Smith & Jones brand. Ching's Secret is aimed at youth between ages 16-25, where there is a demand for something spicier.
  ...
  Apart from variants and positioning, most players acknowledge that trial is the ultimate moment of truth. HUL have 'food ambassadors' at modern retails outlets to encourage sampling. Ching's Secret has gone the college route to get closer to its youth demographic. "We have sponsored a large number of college shows in the country last year and are also targeting the youth aggressively through Facebook," says Gupta. The Ching's Secret community on Facebook has over 118,000 fans following the brand.
4. Vijayaraghavan, Kala (2015-07-25). "Capital Foods' brand Chings's Secret exits noodles market". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Consumer goods company Capital Foods, which sells the Ching's Secret instant noodles and Smith & Jones ketchup and masala noodles, has officially exited the noodles category post the Nestle Maggi controvery. The company says it had a marginal contribution from the noodles category to its total business and will restrict its focus to soups and sauces. The company has also shut down its Vapi plant which manufactured noodles.
  The company's founder chairman and managing director, Ajaay Guptal told ET that the controversy had affected the growth prospects of the category.
5. "Ching's Secret—Real Chow". India Business Insight. 1996-09-15. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Capital Foods, a newly set up company, has launched Ching's Secret range of Chinese food ingredients all over the country. The brand was earlier selling only in Bombay. Capital Foods is promoted by American Dry Fruits, makers of Mother's Recipe pickles. Ching's Secret comprises of 14 products, made by importing technology from Singapore. The products are manufactured at the company's plant at Nashik in Maharashtra.
6. The sources found by Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching's Secret (2nd nomination).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ching's Secret to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) has cleaned up the article so that it is no longer promotional. Regarding concerns about the article's imperfections, Wikipedia:Editing policy# Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of those are either trivial coverage links consisting of either interviews, news about their clients and customers (who wants to know about that....aside from investors and future clients), and other PR-speak such as talking about what their products are; regardless of those having "criticism" and being news publications, that's still not any actual substance for convincing the substantial improvements (to the levels of both a non-advert article but also a still substantially convincing article). SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Random House–published book Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India is not "trivial coverage links consisting of either interviews, news about their clients and customers" or "other PR-speak". Nor are the other sources. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ching’s is also targeted at people in the age group of 18-25 (as against Maggi’s target group of children only) who prefer spicy flavours and look at noodles as a full meal rather than just a snack....It was also felt that Ching’s needs to leverage the Chinese connection and one way to do that was through packaging. So the colour coding and the graphics were essentially meant to symbolize this" is only something a PR agent would care to add. The articles are essentially still about the company talking about itself like this and that's not substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material about the company's marketing practices does not invalidate the Business Standard article from establishing notability. It is valid, acceptable journalism to include discussion about a company's marketing practices in an article about the company.

And the several pages of coverage about Ching's Secret in the Random House–published book Supermarketwala: Secrets To Winning Consumer India book make it a very strong source.

Cunard (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Some of these sources aren't trivial, some are substantive, and some aren't promotional. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'd like to give Cunard's argument the benefit of the doubt. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – from sources I was able to access above and the quotations, seems to weakly meet WP:GNG. AGF about the sources I was unable to access. Here's another source from Aurora, a Pakistani "advertising, marketing and media magazine" that is published bi-monthly (more info). I wonder if more Middle-Eastern sources are available that I cannot access. Perhaps this could be someday merged to Capital Foods, for which I have found several sources that could be used to create an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The coverage is not great, but I believe there is just about enough to meet GNG. I previously cleaned this up so that it is no longer promotional. The fact that much of the coverage is negative is surely not a reason to delete: a corporation is not a living person, and if they are notable for failing a quality test, well that's not our problem. Also, I'm curious as to why this is listed as the 4th nomination, but only three are linked above...Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectWise

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

I'm still not seeing actually of actual substance, the listed sources are either PR, trivial mentions or simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 16:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. The topic meets WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable book sources. See examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Williams, T. (2007). Information Technology for Construction Managers, Architects and Engineers. Thomson Delmar Learning. pp. 6–17. ISBN 978-1-4180-3958-5. (subscription required)
Asian Architect and Contractor. Thompson Press Hong Kong. 2003. pp. 146–147.
Eynon, J. (2016). Construction Manager's BIM Handbook. Wiley. pp. 216– . ISBN 978-1-118-89646-4. (subscription required)
Eastman, C.; Teicholz, P.; Sacks, R.; Liston, K. (2011). BIM Handbook: A Guide to Building Information Modeling for Owners, Managers, Designers, Engineers and Contractors. Wiley. pp. 144– . ISBN 978-1-118-02169-9. (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Northamerica1000's assessment. Aust331 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The votes above seem to be based only from the listed sources above, but this also means they are ignoring why I nominated for AfD, the PROD removal of this was unconvincing; the listed sources are not as substantial as they would need to be. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Sam Sailor 03:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tito Traversa

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

This article was originally nominated because it was a BIO article that wasn't BIO. The article was created during the initial furor and news coverage, but in hindsight, it doesn't appear to have had any lasting effects, and thus doesn't meet WP:EVENT. MSJapan (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search shows that this incident, shocking to rock climbers, received coverage in the most reputable climbing magazines worldwide, that the coverage was sustained, and that there have been newspaper articles about the legal charges against those allegedly responsible even three years after his death, such as this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen238; further recent sources include an article in La Stampa and several citing it (DPM, Gripped). His case has also been cited in the past year in an opinion piece and safety guidelines, further showing its impact on the climbing world. FourViolas (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep on the grounds that the legal proceedings [47] have had ongoing coverage, and it has been 3 years now. However, I think that I could see a rationale for redirecting if an appropriate target can be found. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Edwards (footballer)

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

Per this fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in an WP:FPL. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable footballer. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 00:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.sott.net/article/314132-I-suffer-from-severe-psychological-issues-and-I-need-the-help-of-mental-health-professionals-says-Trump

[1]