Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 June >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lewis

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

Unsanctioned profile with false and liable information Gretz2471 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending some explanation of what is "false and liable" about this article. Wikipedia articles are not "sanctioned".-gadfium 05:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It certainly needs to be edited for tone and sourcing, since parts of it are extremely promotional and it relies on things like Linkedin and an interview with what looks to be a dating game show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adequate third party coverage, does need cleanup, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Considerable, non-trivial coverage in secondary sources in the article already. Google news also has plenty of hits for her [1]. And @Gretz2471:; what's this about "unsanctioned"? Nobody needs to sanction an article for it to exist. As to Libel, if there's something in the article that shouldn't be there, then remove it per WP:BLP. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 30 June 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) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Kreso

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Appears to fail both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:29, 24 June 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) 08:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. (may well be notable very soon but not just yet). - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer.DanversCarew (talk) 15:00, 30 June 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) 02:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhaned Qasem

(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) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:29, 24 June 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) 08:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garakunta palem

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

Unsourced, prod removed. Still unsourced, no assertion of notability, and there are no sources that make it meet GNG~~, and existence is not notability.~~ as maps alone are specifically excluded as sources that assert verifiability and not notability. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is completely wrong. Existence is notability when it comes to named populated places, per WP:GEOLAND. ~~Keep~~ until such time as this nomination is adapted in a way that conforms to policy for villages, towns, cities, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. Well, it may be a foreign language issue, but I can't find anything authoritative to WP:Verify that this place exists. If anyone can, please chime in. I'll keep a watch on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, have you made any attempt to verify whether this place exists? It is unfair to reject my work on this without doing any of your own. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tending towards keep: Kvng has provided a GMaps link on the article's talk page that shows this place at roughly 16°55′26″N 79°24′07″E / 16.924°N 79.402°E / 16.924; 79.402. While I have known inaccurate placename information to get into GMaps, satellite photographs certainly show a place with perhaps a hundred houses at these coordinates. While other Google searches seem fail on the name exactly as given in the article title, English transcriptions of such names usually give them as one word - and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) does give some sources, though none whose reliability I am quite sure enough about to give a definite keep !vote. This may be because of further spelling variants or names (in which case this should be kept, using the most common one) - or just because the place is fairly small (in which case, we might want to keep this, or prefer to mention it in an article on its immediate area). PWilkinson (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a census village, it could be a sub-village (for census purposes a small section of 20-50 houses that are contiguous to another area are clubbed together). See Pages 434 to 439 which lists all villages in Nidamanur mandal. —SpacemanSpiff 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While we don't know if it's a "census village", it is a distinct stand-alone population center. [2]. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. We know that it is not a census village.—SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. WP:V issues appear to have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does pass WP:GEOLAND. This article will likely forever be short, but that's not a reason to delete. Sources in English are hard to find. If someone speaks Telugu, perhaps we can find some more definitive sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 30 June 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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming, there's arguments on both sides and relisting only emphasised that this is contentious. KaisaL (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Chef

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

Only the most local of possible sources, of sources talking only about funding---which are theefore not discriminating. notability.The policy here is NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the available sources seem like media placements by a decent PR agency, which are barely more useful than press releases. Lacking anything else, Delete. And as far as PERNOM, see WP:PEDANTIC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have many links to the same article hosted on various websites. Could you please provide any evidence qualifying your opinion of the sources potentially being media placements by a public relations agency? My research verifies that they are not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage outside local sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the sources I have provided below, which includes coverage in three states outside of Illinois (New York, Indiana, Minnesota). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've also considered PROD but I imagine that may have been removed as it commonly happens. There's simply nothing here at all for any applicable notability and searches would find the same. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches provided plenty of reliable source coverage to qualify notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Several additional sources are available that are not based upon fundraising. Per WP:AUD, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" and "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold emphasis mine). The Chicago Tribune article below qualifies as a source that provides regional and statewide coverage. Per the Chicago Tribune Wikipedia article, it is the most-read daily newspaper of the Great Lakes region and Chicago metropolitan area. See the maps below for the geographic areas of these regions.

The The Times of Northwest Indiana is the "the second-largest newspaper in Indiana" that qualifies as regional coverage (see The Times of Northwest Indiana § Distribution) and possibly statewide coverage.

The company has received coverage in three states outside of Illinois, specifically in Indiana, the New York Observer and St. Paul Pioneer Press. Examples of bylined news articles are listed below. More sources also exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not based upon fundraising

Additional sources

Maps

The Chicago Tribune is the most-read daily newspaper in The Great Lakes region of North America (pictured)
A map of the Chicago metropolitan area in relation to the states of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana

Comment The articles not based on fundraising are straight promotion--just read the Chicago Tribune one for example. It's essentially an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bylined news article written by a staff writer for the Chicago Tribune. You have provided no evidence of this or any of the other articles supposedly being paid advertorials. Such evidence is unlikely to be found, because simply put, they are not. For example, notice how a Google search for the verbatim title of the Chicago Tribune article (here) only links to the Chicago Tribune article, and no others, so it's not a press release either. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple potential sources have been listed by Northamerica1000. Users Toddst1, Meatsgains, and SwisterTwister may want to re-visit the discussion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would still be a delete for now, the listed coverage is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CORPDEPTH states, " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources I provided above all provide significant coverage, provide coverage in three states outside of Illinois, and are not trivial or incidental coverage at all. "Not convincing" comes across as entirely subjective, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable sources with significant coverage listed within discussion here, not limited to one local area. Gab4gab (talk) 11:47, 29 June 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 Rising Storm 2: Vietnam. MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter Games

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

Redirect was reverted. Fails WP:NCORP. A video game developer that has never released a game. Propose redirecting to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or deletion. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or delete. I found a lot of trivial mentions, but the only thing that really covered them in any depth was [3] from Western Morning News, a local paper. If there were another story or two like this, maybe we could fill up the article with the trivial mentions and say it's close enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write a separate article. czar 23:12, 25 June 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. I have returned to this discussion a couple of times over the past day, and found this a particularly difficult AFD to close. There is certainly strong arguments both for and against keeping this article. Many of the against arguments hinge on WP:NOTINHERITED, and the for arguments on the sheer wealth of biographical source material. There is less question of whether Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. is notable for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia; Clearly, whether this article exists or not, the substantial article on Muhammad Ali should include information on him. There is a case for a merge, and I am happy to leave that to the admittedly torn editors on his talk page for the moment, rather than stipulating that myself. I cannot, quite, find an actionable consensus and as this has already been relisted twice, I do not feel we will find it. I hope my summarising comments sufficiently explain my decision to close in this way. KaisaL (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.

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

Been the father of a famous person doesn't not make a person pass WP:GNG. An AFD 7 years ago was closed as merge but no one ever did so. It was suggested on the talk page to start a new AFD so here it is. Clay has no notability for himself. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED Seasider91 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there such as this. It is interesting to learn from this that Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a few paragraphs in relation to his son in a book about his son. It seems prominent enough material to go into Muhammad Ali, but it's not the significant independent coverage of a subject that we would expect for this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - anything out there seems to be only due to his paternity.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete votes completely misinterpret WP:NOTINHERITED. The policy states that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (emphasis mine) and this is where most people hit the floor. However, if you read beyond the headline, it delivers a knockout: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". The article already includes more than enough coverage to justify WP:GNG - it should not even be a contest. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but none of the references (except for the short obit) is about senior. The others are essentially passing mentions. I don't think GNG is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I can accept that we might have different interpretation of what constitutes "passing mention" within the context of WP:GNG, rather than automatically ruling out anything that also covers his son. However, I would argue that the source User:Andrew Davidson provided is much more than a passing mention. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Just a note that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy. It's part of an essay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. I'm OK with Merging or redirecting this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Muhammad Ali is/was an extremely notable person and just being the covered father of an extremely notable person should warrant a keep. However, STRONGLY support merge instead of delete if delete is the consensus. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria says that "just being the ... father of ... notable person" "warrants a keep"? Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see the accomplishments or significant independent coverage to show notability. Remove everything related to his son and I don't think anyone would argue that he's notable on his own. I have no objections to the article being merged or redirected to Ali's, but I don't see the evidence that shows he should have his own article. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum, or Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion at the talk page AfD is not for content disputes. AfDs closed as merge or redirect do not bind the content experts at the talk page of the article. There is not a hint of a case for a notability deletion, given the absolutely essential nature of this topic at the article for Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.. A "wrong forum" result does not close this discussion, but moves it to the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. This is not a content dispute, it's about whether Ali's father is WP notable or not. That makes this the correct place to discuss this topic. Whether or not it's "essential" to the Ali article is both unproven and irrelevant to the determination of Clay Sr.'s notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of wp:notability only applies to the topic of the article, not the content of the article. Deletions apply to both the topic and the content. Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia, so the article content falls as a side effect. The normal type of notability discussion that decides whether a topic's content should be stand alone or merged to a parent article is, as per our policy, handled on the talk page. See WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion and WP:Insignificance.

As for your assertion that:

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.

has not been proven to be essentially related to

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.

I offer that the proof occurs by inspection.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see the criteria that articles can only be deleted if "the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia"? Also, it might behoove you to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that Clay, Sr. and Clay, Jr. were not related, I said that Ali's notability is irrelevant to Clay, Sr.'s notability. Each article's topic must show it is notable in its own right, otherwise it should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven as you requested that deleting this topic from the encyclopedia would do irreparable damage to the encyclopedia. As for your request for more information about Wikipedia's concept of wp:notability, I've provided cites above. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those links you mentioned and dont see where the topic can be deleted only if it's "not not used anyplace in the encyclopedia". Also, you have not proven anything--except perhaps to yourself. You certainly have not shown Wikipedia would suffer "irreparable damage" if this article was deleted. He's already mentioned in Ali's article, but I've seen nothing to show he deserves his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last phrase, "deserves his own article", tells me you are confounding the normal standalone vs. merge/redirect notability; with the special case of WP:DEL8, deletion notability. Are you are willing to argue that the term "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr." can be deleted from the parent article? I assume not, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope. Notes 3 and 4 at WP:Insignificance both cite policies. Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that this is a content placement dispute rather than a notability question seems a little misdirecting. The claim "Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia" (which I've never heard of in my 12 years here) doesn't seem to hold up when parents of notable people are mentioned in their articles throughout the Wikipedia without the parents being notable enough to merit their own articles. The only question here is whether Sr. as a topic is notable or not. Of course, any reliably sourced Sr. topic content contributing to Jr.'s biography could go into Jr.'s article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this may be breaking news then: WP:N was changed in early 2008 so that it is no longer partly a content guideline. Your rationale to delete before redirecting has as its purpose to prevent certain content edits to improve the encyclopedia, which is against policy. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you would go into more detail with many of your declarations, as I have to say I can't make sense of them. 'Delete' because a topic isn't notable is normal here in the Wikipedia, and redirecting a non-notable parent to a child is also normal. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided detail at WP:Insignificance. The redirecting of a non-notable parent to a child is a function of WP:Editing policy, so is a content decision. WP:DEL8 is deletion policy, not WP:N. AFD, or Articles for Deletion, is for community decisions that require admin tools, which a non-deletion redirect is not, although non-deletion redirect !votes have been accepted at AfD since 2009. But AfD's closed as a content decision (no admin tools used) are not binding, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not coerce an administrator into ongoing supervision of a content dispute. A non-delete redirect discussion can be handled on the talk page of the article, and WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions WP:RFC as a possibility for content discussions such as this one. The current AfD IMO should have been promptly closed by an administrator for, among other things, the claim that there was a WP:N issue without there also being a claim that the issues rise to a WP:DEL8/WP:DP issue. WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add..." WP:N states, "...deletion should be a last resort." WP:Deletion policy says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DP further says, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." . Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability. This is about existence of the article (i.e., should it even exist before it is redirected or merged). This is the correct venue to discuss existence of the article. That aspect can be enforced. If that is not resolved here, then it can switch to an action of bold redirecting/merging or an editor agreement (RfC if necessary) to decide that. Complicated wikilawyering seems to only distort these normal processes going on here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've cited no policies to rebut my quotes from policy. My statements stand. If you think that what I've stated above can be improved, then I invite you to write your own deletion-policy essay. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at your first sentence, it says, "... if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability."

(1) There is no Wikipedia requirement that articles demonstrate notability. This appears to be a pre-2008 argument.

(2) There is a "way to improve the article" by redirecting it.

No one has been willing to argue that the topic can be removed from Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., yet procedurally, you want to use the time of AfD volunteers to discuss this article at AfD for reasons that you haven't explained. From the viewpoint of AfD, this is a minor decision which does not require the time of administrators, does not require general concern about which choices are made, is not urgent, and doesn't require that the decision sticks. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references to "the article" in your response, WP:N is not about the article...again, as I said above, this changed in early 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not about deletion, rather it is WP:DEL8 that is deletion policy. The fact that there are editors who have !voted "delete" without explaining how their WP:N !votes rise to the level of a WP:DEL8 argument does not overturn WP:Deletion policy. A policy-based WP:DEL8 delete !vote both provides verifiable evidence that a topic is non-notable and evidence that the topic is insignificant (cannot be redirected). In addition, there may also be verifiable content to preserve using WP:MAD. Should a closing admin support our deletion policy? Again, a Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Do you support our policies and guidelines? Sincerely, Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just as it did when I voted to delete in 2009. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali. Due to seemingly only minor coverage (usually fleeting mentions) in various articles/books about Ali, this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, but outright deletion doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Some reliably sourced description of his father as it relates to Ali may merit inclusion in his article, so that may be thought of as a "merge". The NYT description of Sr. as "a handsome, mercurial, noisy, combative failed dreamer, [who] gave [Clay Jr./Ali] the gift of tongue" seems like useful contributing bio info for Ali. Deleting before redirecting would make it less convenient to revert back to a full article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple sources discussing the subject, plus WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Emmanuel178 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All I've seen are fleeting references or a few paragraphs at most discussing this subject in relation to his son. These sources are discussing this subject only because they are writing about his son. Are you seeing any sources covering this subject independently or otherwise in depth? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can somebody point me to some significant coverage of Clay Sr. that is independent of his son? Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali, as there's still nothing convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Damn Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there. Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. He is a noted subject in many movies as well. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make claims, but present no supporting evidence. For example, what movies is he the subject of? People have been claiming to be the greatest for thousands of years, Clay was hardly the first. In fact, some have even been recognized by others as such. That's why the Russian czar was not "Peter the Pretty Good" and the Greek conqueror was not "Alexander the Above Average". Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Father is only known for his famous son. Any sources avaliable on him are in relation to Muhammad Ali. Unless there are some significant stand-alone accomplishments that somehow multiple respectable editors missed, this is a clear-cut case of a non-notable subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 2 July 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 and redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use. A contentious topic but WP:NEO covers this and arguments for delete and redirect on both listings are most convincing. KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia-phobia

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

Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is covered extensively, not just "used", in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use and merge the reliably sourced content (which isn't much) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per meatsgains. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, not seeing it as a likely search term so no need for redirect. Artw (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several citations define and discuss the concept and term. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. I don't think this will ever evolve into an article of much quality. There's much too little media coverage for it to be considered notable. What little information it has can easily be put into the criticism section of Islamophobia.Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. Even if it had more coverage so as to be marginally notable, it's still better covered in what is effectively its parent article. It's possible there's a place to mention in the political correctness article, too? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhododendrites and WP:POVFORK, due to absence of secondary sources. Primary sources (opinion pieces) in HuffPo (partisan), New York Post (tabloid), Fox News (partisan; claims to have coined the term in 2016), and the New Humanist (good for a primary source, but insufficient) are not RS for the purposes of GNG. Secondary sources are required by WP:NEO as well; without them it's definitionally impossible to write an article satisfying WP:NPOV, which not okay because the topic is politicized. FourViolas (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (preferably just delete) per above (WP:NEO/WP:GNG). The word itself appears to be used in a tongue-in-cheek manner in articles that are criticizing the concept of Islamophobia as a useless neologism. It's an intentionally silly term. A good hint that this isn't widely remarked upon: Piers Benn and Gutfield, writing three years apart, both appear to believe they've just coined a new term when they use it. Nblund (talk) 00:36, 29 June 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 Escape the Fate discography § Singles. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Situations

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

Non notable song. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Escape the Fate § Discography or Escape the Fate discography § Singles, which will serve as an improvement to one of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as there are no signs at all this will actually be acceptable in the future, delete and redirect as it's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 July 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) 02:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsCred

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

I removed a majority of the worst contents but the remaining still make this questionable for solid notability. My searches at News have particularly found massive numbers of sources, but several are simply PR, blogs, news about its funding, "Companies to Watch in the Future" and such all suggesting this is still getting news mainly for its funding and is not yet notable. See particularly this and also the differences between versions here and here. Notifying DGG as he has a history of examining these articles especially when it comes to expected news for funding. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little but public relations dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. promotional . TheNYTimes article might hilp support an article on the ceo, but not on the company. `

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial concerns such as removing promotional language can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex and Ani

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

I tried to clean up the promotionalism but there's nothing else there. the so -called references are fundamentally press releases DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One of the most significant jewelry companies in the US, major and significant press coverage spanning many years, ranging from network news to major newspapers to fashion magazines. A simple Google News search shows dozens more recent RS. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for all the reasons Jeremy112233 mentioned. The article needs improving (and is appropriately tagged as such), but it's a legitimately notable entry.Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 1 July 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) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShinKen-Do

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

Unreferenced article on an unarmed martial art evidently unrelated to the Japanese swordfighting sport Shinkendo, with no indication of notability per WP:GNG. There seem to be societies for this in a few countries, but there's no significant coverage of it online from WP:Reliable sources; only Gnews hit was this brief local press article about a club forming: [4]. Zero Gbooks hits. Proposed deletion contested by article creator with an incoherent edit summary. OnionRing (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Worth pointing out that the only two references given in the article have nothing directly to do with the subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unrelated Japanese martial art Shinkendo was also deleted by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo )but most of the searchs pull up the Japanese varient.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and there's no indication of notability. My search didn't turn up the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and there's nothing to show it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 28 June 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 Massachusetts General Hospital#Affiliated institutions. I will fix the capitalization first. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery research institute

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

Article is full of references but they do not deal with the institute itself-- they're about the doctors and the research papers they have published. Other refs are self-published by Harvard or the associated hospital. An absence of good refs dealing with the subject means it fails WP:GNG. Article was created by a paid COI editor for promotional purposes. See confirmation here. COI editor also removed PROD.(Deletion issue is still notability, not COI.) See also the COIN discussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Massachusetts_General_Hospital#Affiliated_institutions and add a single sentence there about the founding of the Institute. I find no independent sources for it, and the entire second paragraph of the article cites non-independent sources for people, but not about the institute. What would remain in the article when that was removed would be two sentences and no independent sources. An article for the institute could be added later if sources arise. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Massachusetts_General_Hospital#Affiliated_institutions. I actually fully agree with LaMona but think it would be called a merge unless somebody edits the target before this AfD closes. DeVerm (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - This entity is closer to a lab than an "affiliated institution" as defined in the section in the MGH article. That section is talking about external things like the Harvard Teaching Hospital Network, not the internal centers in the hospital. WP:NOTPROMO, especially on a known paid COI. Salt to prevent recreation, because the COI editor has incentive to do so. MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Institute is not a lab, we are actually completely separately funded through private & public donations and grants garnered by the director John F. Kelly (Endowed Harvard Medical School Professor) before starting up in 2012. Proof of that is if you go to the organizations homepage at recoveryanswers.org, you will not see Massachusetts General branding-guidelines enforced, because the institute is truly separate to operate individually, although affiliated. Also, it seems a little weird, (but I get it), that I am the "COI editor." Yes I work at the institute and make a salary, but the institute is non-profit, we do no active fundraising, and our work is all in public interest for public benefit to learn more about addiction through research (to try and help people!). So it is not like I went on Wikipedia to try to scam this entry up here to sell a product. I saw think tanks like the Rand Corporation and such have entries. I also am new to wikipedia and very much appreciate learning about the do's and don'ts of the process, and how it all works, so thank you everyone! - COI, but my name is Alexandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just looked up the word "salt"... we have not, and will not try to re-put up a page for the institute if the group consensus is that we should not have one. The group process will be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 June 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) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Gräupl

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

According to a statement at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:EGportrait2016.jpg, User:Edwin41 is the subject, Edwin Gräupl.

Following an upload of an identical image, I ran a Checkuser on Commons and have determined that Ritamaria48, who began this article, is a puppet of Edwin41.

The two principal contributors to this article are its subject, User:Edwin41 and his puppet, User:Ritamaria48. The subject may or may not meet WP:EN's requirements for notability, but he certainly cannot write his own article as he has done here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, at Talk:Edwin Gräupl, an IP confirms that User:Ritamaria48 is Edwin Gräupl's wife. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page appears to be a copy & paste move from de:Benutzer:Edwin41/EdwinEnglish. The German Wikipedia sandbox was created by the 'husband account' while the English Wikipedia article was created using copy & paste by the 'wife account'. Some kind of attribution of the original source may be necessary if the page is kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
James, the article is rather neutrally worded. I don't believe the serious COI concerns alone are reason enough for deletion, if he is judged to be notable as an academic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as an academic judged by GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I examined his article and there's simply nothing else apart from the apparent honorary awards which are nothing for Wikipedia, WorldCat only shows 8 library holdings and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar finds five publications, some with one citation and some with zero, far below the standard for WP:PROF. And membership in an archaic religious club also doesn't confer notability. We can also consider the autobiography and sockpuppetry issues as reasons to delete, but why when there's so little other reason to keep? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable academic and educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete -- The Order of the Holy Sepulchre has 52 Lieutenancies, presumably one for each country. He was thus the leader of this order in Austria. If we had an article on the order in Austria and what it did, listing the successive Lieutenants, I might have voted to keep, but we do not. I suspect "professor" is being used in the American sense of lecturer. He then became an inspector, not chief inspector (or such like). Finally he self-published 5 books: it all looks NN to me. Is there any more in the German WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 28 June 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haridas Chaudhuri

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

No good references since 2012. No referenced evidence of notability. I also removed a lot of essaylike hagiographical writing from the text. If this person is as notable as the article claims, we would expect clear evidence from verifiable third-party reliable sources to have been added some time in the past four years. If the high-quality references can be brought. this might be saveable. - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Cheers to those who dug up the prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bibliography section of the article includes a link to a detailed biographical profile in the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. I see that as a strong claim to notability, which can be transformed to an inline reference in a matter of minutes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added three references, two of them to encyclopedias, and one to a publication by the University of Chicago. This individual is notable, it's just that no-one has put in the effort to put in citations. Perhaps a higher proportion of relevant reliable citations are offline for this type of topic, than for some other topics. But inclusion of biographical articles in multiple encyclopedias confirms clearly that the individual is notable. --Presearch (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 25 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie vineyard

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

OK, so there are multiple possible claims to notability, but I found none of them hold the water. A third-party unsuccessful political candidate to a state parliament is hardly worth mentioning; same for a DJ at local radio stations. The wrestling career falls short of WP:NBOX.

The real claim is probably WP:GNG based on the coverage in local newspapers, but I do not think it really qualifies. I found nothing that is not already in the article (though I probably missed one of the multiple aliases). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed -- none of the claims of notability stand up to scrutiny. Vineyard's wrestling career has not gone beyond regional venues, and the coverage provided all appears to be from his local hometown paper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!

Keep -- Vineyard has more articles that are nationwide that pop up under "Funkmaster V". He has been in the national publication Pro Wrestling Illustrated multiple times, appeared in National Television in a starring role and has popped up under his musical exploits and on national Libertarian webpages.

Links to additional references collapsed by Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more links that I have found:

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2013/12/23/yanss-podcast-014-melanie-c-green-and-how-stories-can-change-beliefs-and-behaviors/

http://www.wewantinsanity.com/am2/publish/RDLee/Nolan_s_Gift_Toys_For_Tots_Benefit_Show.shtml

http://wrestlingnewscenter.blogspot.com/2009/04/txw-results-from-3-28-in-knoxville-tn.html

http://gwhnewsandnotes.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html

http://wimz.com/events/event/community/1921/great-american-wrestling/

http://www.theburninghammer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33056

http://theoffshoots.podbean.com/2015/08/

http://uptownbailbonds.blogspot.com/

http://www.thedailytimes.com/entertainment/wallypalooza-strikes-back-local-festival-organizers-prepare-for-a-labor/article_5e8fe234-5a05-5c48-b88e-c6651b1cbc34.html

http://sharetv.com/shows/16_and_pregnant/season_1

http://greatamericanwrestling.blogspot.com/

http://www.morgancountynews.net/content/era-wrestling-comes-wartburg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmn_tNdeP5w

http://www.wherevent.com/detail/Wally-Miles-Wallypalooza-2013-The-FareWALL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhx02kYGObk

https://www.oxygen.com/snapped/season-16/brynn-hartman

http://www.funkmasterv.com/pwitopten.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss_hxP3tfx0&feature=c4-overview&list=UU0aGpAbOKXgujXHEsNieZog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWwp296UKTw

http://m.thedailytimes.com/news/local-wrestling-show-raises-funds-for-shop-with-a-cop/article_76bfe39a-fb3b-56f5-ad07-7b67662c7186.html?mode=jqm#.VGmMoyHWick.facebook

http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/_2011/

www.tvrage.com/murder-comes-to-town/episodes/1065740185

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnoc-FnYLs

http://wrestlingnewscenter.blogspot.com/2008/08/tennessee-xtreme-wrestling-results.html

Boohickley(talk)

@Boohickley: Please read WP:RS. No seasoned Wikipedia editor will bother to click a link from youtube or blogspot, because those are self-published sources.

To keep the discussion page readable, I collapsed your links in a box. You can cancel that move by removing the {{cot|…}} and {{cob}} templates if you so wish. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WikiDan61. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That this subject has gotten press is not in question. The problem is that regardless of the diversity of areas of activity of this subject--including those undertaken with a stage name--all of it falls under the trivial/local/promotional umbrella. This includes whatever mention there is in a nationally distributed publication or tv show. Are we to suggest that any person or topic that can make such a claim deserves a wikipedia article? Example: every player who has ever suited up for Notre Dame football has also been on national television and, most likely, the subject of a newspaper article. I'm just not seeing much "stand out" accomplishment from this person. Another point: the sole vote for "keep" is from the articles' author who appears here with a biased opinion. As such it should be stricken. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments unrelated to the article at hand collapsed for readability of the main thread

- Comment @ShelbyMarion: Opinions are, by definition, biased. Boohickley has a biased opinion that this article should remain. You have a biased opinion that this article should be deleted. The fact that your opinion may be more in line with Wikipedia policy doesn't make it any less biased. Let Boo's comment stand and be evaluated among the others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- reply @WikiDan61: Oh, yes. You are right. My error in using the word "bias." Perhaps a better word might be.... partial/impartial? The point being, as an editor with no skin in the game, I am pointing out impartial reasons for deletion. Whereas Boohickley, as the author, has essentially already argued in favor of preserving the article; his "keep" vote, then, is a partial second vote. Is not the end point of these afd discussions to tally the number of keeps vs. deletes suggested by impartial observers? I'm not suggesting strike his comments from the discussions. It's to simply not count his vote when tallying from a list of objective opinions. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @ShelbyMarion: As is often pointed out, AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion regarding the merits of an article related to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have seen many AFDs where the result (keep or delete) represented the minority of opinions expressed, because the majority of opinions were not based on policy but rather on strong feelings one way or the other. That being said, article authors are free to comment at the AFD to try to convince the reviewing administrator that their article meets criteria for inclusion. There has never been any suggestion that article authors should be barred from commenting at AFDs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I'm going to collapse this portion of the discussion as it is irrelevant to the article at hand. If you wish to continue the discussion, please do so at my user talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:14, 28 June 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. A10 Basava and G12: This chapter —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasture Ganesh

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

Article written in the Marathi language, but the Google translation (albeit poor) makes it clear it is an essay on spirituality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (edit conflict), tagged by another patroller as WP:CSD#A10, the primary subject being Veerashaiva. I cannot confirm or infirm this is the case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 June 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. A10 Basava and G12: This chapter —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasture Ganesh

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

Article written in the Marathi language, but the Google translation (albeit poor) makes it clear it is an essay on spirituality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (edit conflict), tagged by another patroller as WP:CSD#A10, the primary subject being Veerashaiva. I cannot confirm or infirm this is the case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Hampel

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

Not notable living person Antonycarrere (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed and planned to nominate since there was nothing at all for any actual convincing notability and my searches have not found better. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her dad might be notable but she isn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Straightgrain. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 28 June 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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming. KaisaL (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge café

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

I see no actual evidence for any of the contents in this particle,. It essentially consists of an instructional description of how to practice this particular model of group interaction. NOT HOWTO is just one of the relevant reasons for deletion. I see from the available GoogleNews references that the term has been used in quite another sense [5]. I also see thatthe World Cafe articles describes this as just a variant. There would be almost nothing here worth merging, and I am not sure it is even significant enough of a variant to redirect. There DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. The topic passes WP:GNG, based upon searches for available sources. Some source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"The Knowledge Café–A Knowledge Management System and Its Application to Hospitality and Tourism". Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism. Volume 3, Issue 3-4, 2002. pp. 75-88.
The Complete Guide to Knowledge Management. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt112–114.
The World Café. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. pp. 96-98.
ICIE 2015 3rd International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Academic Conferences Limited. pp. 191–193.
The Future of Knowledge. Routledge. pp. 146–148.
Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry. IGI Global. p. 61.
Capitalizing on Knowledge. Routledge. pp. 125–. (subscription required)
Powerful Professional Development. Corwin Press. pp. 83–. (subscription required)
Knowledge café for intellectual entrepreneurship. 204 pages.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:31, 23 June 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. Passes subject specific guideline. No realistic chance of any other outcome than keep. Fenix down (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Moeini

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Flycatchr, who indicated on the article's talk page that the subject's notability is unclear. For my part, WP:NFOOTY would hinge on how notable the subject's team (Dibba Al-Fujairah Club) is - if it's a top tier professional club, then it's a good bet that this player is notable. Otherwise, WP:USUAL probably applies, and we'll have to wait for this player to play at a higher level or for a more notable organization before an article becomes appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, I looked up the football club and found that they are listed as a member of UAE Arabian Gulf League. That league is listed as a fully professional league at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. I also see that several of this player's previous teams are in the same league - which would indicate that he meets WP:NFOOTY, as a fully professional player on a qualifying team. (He's also 30, not 20 - so USUAL is a stretch as well. That's what I get for checking WP:BADAFD on mobile.) UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject does indeed pass WP:NFOOTY by having played for several teams in the fully professional UAE Arabian Gulf League, as confirmed by the Soccerway external link already present in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. It's probably worth reminding the nominator about WP:BEFORE. If he wishes to withdraw the nomination, we can close this without wasting any further time. Giant Snowman 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, generally. In this case, the redlinked nomination popped up on WP:BADAFD and I completed the nom per AGF, then got to wondering and started digging around. Had I done that before, I would have discussed it with the nom first - but then again, if they had read WP:AFDHOWTO and done it all on their own this would have been a bog standard AFD. Maybe a SNOW close, but standard nonetheless. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've leave a note for the original nominator regarding withdrawal. For my part, I have no objection to a SNOW close. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has played in the UAE Arabian Gulf League, a fully professional league. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:29, 28 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Currane

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline (WP:AFLN) either. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Flickerd (talk) 06:20, 30 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Currane

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources and does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline (WP:AFLN) either. Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Flickerd (talk) 06:20, 30 June 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. Lack of reliable sources or dispute contributes to decision to close without a relisting. KaisaL (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MoroniChannel.org

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

Mormon apologetics blog with no indication of notability per WP:WEB. This was already speedied three times at Moroni Channel as spam, and finally salted. Zero GNews hits for "Mormon Channel", and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Their sole claims to fame here is that a notable Mormon once posted there, and that they've had the occasional shoutout from some other websites. OnionRing (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N / WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak republic (1990-1992)

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

This article lacks content and is currently only a dictionary entry. Whatever information there is, is already contained in the articles Slovakia and Slovak Socialist Republic. Unless there is much information specific to the Slovak Republic 1990-1992 (but not to the Slovak Socialist Republic, and not to the Slovak Republic from 1993 on) added, the current article is not necessary and would only make sense as a redirection. Schlosser67 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this duplicates what's already been stated in Slovak Socialist Republic:

"After the fall of socialism in Czechoslovakia, the word "socialist" was dropped in the names of the two republics, i.e. the Slovak Socialist Republic was renamed Slovak Republic (still part of Czechoslovakia, since April 1992 of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic)."

GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If a country is renamed, it does not thereby become a new state; it is merely a renamed one. We need Slovak Republic as a dab-page, as it is a possible search term, but the present title is not such. This is a useless stub and should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 28 June 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. Clear consensus to delete. KaisaL (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wasserman

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

no evidence for importance asa physician, and only a little for importance as an adminsitrator,, DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is not the subject of this article's references and he has no significant coverage in other reliable sources, which would otherwise indicate he merits an article on Wikipedia. There is nothing to indicate he has contributed significantly to his field, nor is their any record of receiving notable awards (see: WP:People and WP:Academic). However, it seems he is very active advocating for geriatric health issues and increasing the number of doctors in this field throughout the U.S. as soon as possible, but apparently, this is not an indication of notability. Also, the coverage pertaining to his activism is not sufficient for a biographical article on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on another non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--not notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found this and asked DGG for his analysis, I knew there enough questionability that I actually nearly PRODed it myself. Nothing at all actually convincing for notability here. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 30 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Renée

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

WP:BLP, written like a campaign brochure and based entirely on primary sources with no indication of reliable source coverage shown, of a city councillor in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person seems to fail WP:NPOL. Virond (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing convincing for the politicians notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 1 July 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyTool

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

no evidence or notability -- just routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serious lack of notability. This "product" has not accomplished anything noteworthy such as Microsoft Word or Excel, or any Apple products. These "products" have impacted societies and cultures all over the world, in contrast to "SurveyTool". The sources in this article, and sources found on the Web, are concerned with only company issues, a really localized phenomena, not impact or noteworthiness--- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no credible claim of significance here. There are many websites which allow users to create online web surveys; nothing indicates that this one is particularly notable. Neither is this a very popular tool which would perhaps merit an article. I did find some references for its parent company, but overall I still do not see any indication of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I actually planned to comment sooner (was not aware of the relist), my analysis and searches have simply found nothing better at all for any minimal notability and the listed information says it all. SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 30 June 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 WP:SNOW delete. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal v Iceland (UEFA Euro 2016)

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

An individual match that is not significant enough for its own article. Whilst it might be important to Iceland, this match has not enough significance for its own article, as the important details are in the UEFA Euro 2016 Group F article anyway. PROD contested by IP with no rationale given. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing remarkable about this match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill match in a tournament which is adequately covered in its own article. Neiltonks (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need articles on each individual match, coverage of the tournament is enough. MLA (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I seconded the PROD for the same reason I am !voting here. This is an unremarkable match in the grand scheme of things covered in enough detail in the tournament and group articles. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Iceland didn't even win, they drew. This match is wholly unremarkable. – Pee Jay 11:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A group stage match that is not notable. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting importance or notability. Giant Snowman 17:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable match-up, the article on the UEFA Euro tournament covers the match in sufficient detail. Only thing I gained from it is a loss of respect for Ronaldo fantastic. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated comment, but, they (Iceland) beat England. This is the most interesting thing to happen in this tournament so far. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about it. Kante4 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't notable enough to get its own article and if it was me I think that the England-Iceland game would be more suitable for an article than this one. Matt294069 is coming 01:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The match summaries that are now in the tournament articles are as much as we need. KaisaL (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as there's simply nothing actually convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 1 July 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wake the Sleeping Giant

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. The Skinnie Magazine review isn't linked to an actual reference and I couldn't find it. The other one is a 404. My own search for reviews of this album didn't turn up much. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band doesn't appear to be notable. No coverage found in reliable sources of either the band or this album. --Michig (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I was unable to find reliable sources per WP:NALBUM. Virond (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. Their band is also listed for AfD and that too is failing. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:16, 24 June 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. No consensus is forthcoming and the trickle of debate indicates no clear actionable consensus will be reached by endlessly relisting. KaisaL (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Noonan

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

This article does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Few sources, never won an election, never was a formidable or notable candidate, seems only potentially notable due to his political involvement, which he does not seem notable at all. 1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. No doubt this article needs improvement, especially better sourcing. Noonan's role in the AIP struggle is arguably his most notable achievement. Noonan also received coverage from reliable sources for his suits regarding President Obama's eligibility. He is also a perennial candidate, and other perennials have their own articles (but, admittedly, the existence of other articles does not justify this article). --Weazie (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was the state chair of an extremely small party, and engaged in hopeless lawsuits more gained at garnering publicity, but that lack the widespead coverage to justify saying he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on search results, there is some notability. That said, not enough reliable sources to support the content of the page. Coderzombie (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 23 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Orsini

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

WP:BLP of a municipal councillor, in a city (pop. 4K) not large enough to get its city councillors over WP:NPOL just for being city councillors. The strongest "more notable than the norm" hook here is that she's transgender and pagan, neither of which actually constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself -- and the sourcing here is limited to the city council's own primary source webpage about itself and two deadlinks of magazine articles that don't look like they were particularly strong reliable sources even when they were live ("The Witches' Voice", in particular, is a user-generated content site, which deadlinks because "the author of this article no longer has an active account".) None of this constitutes a compelling reason why she would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia, and the sourcing is not solid enough to claim WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Councillors of Centralia, Missouri (and other cities of similar sizes) are not inherently notable, as noted. The two characteristics that might give Orsini notability are her being a Pagan and her being transgender, which are both uncommon (though not unheard of) among elected officials. However, as interesting as those characteristics may be, she has not been the subject of any significant coverage to establish her notability – coverage of her has either been WP:ROUTINE (i.e., not beyond that expected of small-town elected officials), or tangential (e.g., she is briefly mentioned in this article about transgender elected officials, but the article is not about her). IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing that surprises me is that Centralia with an area under 3 square miles and just over 4,000 people subdivides their council into at least 3 wards. However that bizarrity considering its area does not make council members notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 27 June 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. I initially relisted, but I saw that the very nomination for deletion argued that there were numerous reliable sources covering the article. As the argument regarding insignificance is not justification for deletion and there were two keep votes, I'll just close this as keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vince and Kath

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

Notability issue. This article is too insignificant to deserve a Wikipedia page, even if there has been a number of pretty reliable sources to back up the creation of the content of this article. YX1 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per nom. Why suggest deletion then give reason it should be kept? Numerous reputable sources and is notable for apparently being the first online series of its kind. — Wylie pedia 17:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:57, 23 June 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 Royal College, Colombo. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dornhorst Memorial Prize

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

College popularity award. The fact that it is given out by "the oldest college in Colombo" doesn't make the award notable. Notable award-winners were not notable at the time of receipt of the award. MSJapan (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Prize is well documented in Sri Lankan media ( [6], [7] ) in terms of its origin ( [8] ) as well as many notables who gain it in their early life ( [9], [10], [11] ). Many such awards exist under the catagory Category:Student awards. NaminiGunasena (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This is the same argument you made on Turnour Prize, with the same sources. That's not possible, because the same people don't get multiple awards. I'll reiterate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MSJapan (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is only a high school popularity award and there is no evidence of notability. Dan arndt (talk)
Redirect to Royal College, Colombo, which already mentions it -- and a mention at the school article is all that's necessary for this per WP:GNG. Also note that the school's article needs some serious work, too. That's a crazy list of awards with no WP:WEIGHT established. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is acceptable to keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 1 July 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 23:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marathi Brahmins

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

Notability is in question here... TJH2018 talk 02:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary overcategorization. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also suggest deleting List of Notable Marathi Brahmins for same reasons and POV. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete both. Marathi brahmin exists only as a dab page, so we can't have a "list of X" if "X "isn't notable enough to at least potentially have its own article. On the other hand, even if it were, it wouldn't make sense to have this list: aside from practicalities (it can get too big to be manageable and it can easily become a battleground of edit warring over the inclusion of people of contested identities), it isn't very encyclopedic as a list. I know this is a vague term to be avoided in discussions like this, but it does capture the intuition that some lists are worth having here and some aren't. I don't think we could imagine to have lists corresponding for example to African-American upper class. Uanfala (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there does seem to be a similar List of German Americans. Oh well, my last argument might be moot then, but at least we still have the lack of notability of Marathi brahmin to go by. Uanfala (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing convincing of its own article, information is best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 1 July 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 Add-2. Redirecting per an earlier suggestion as no objection in favour of keeping as it is appears to be forthcoming. KaisaL (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prey For the Poor

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,, there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article , secondly the references on this article is not reliable Samat lib (talk) 16:14, 9 June 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 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Add-2, there are a few sources in Google News [12], but they are not enough in terms of significance to justify a standalone article. Cavarrone 08:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 23 June 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. joe decker ^talk 18:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Enrique González Pacheco

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering until when the readers will be seeing the deletion template on Jorge Enrique Gonzalez Pacheco article. This article has lots of reference and verifiable information about this autor. I'm seeing little bit of discrimination with a Hispanic writer at the Wikipedia in English! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.202.146 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article created by the person's manager [13] who has also been acting very disruptively, removing deletion tags and moving the article around to various titles. That doesn't affect the notability of the subject; as far as that is concerned, the claims to notability are very weak and I can't see that WP:NAUTHOR is met. --bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I examined the article but found nothing actually convincing for any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 1 July 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. Article needs strong improvement. I will be adding the post-AFD cleanup template to reflect the need for improvement, but there is clearly consensus to keep the subject. KaisaL (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expansions of Eve Online

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

Eve Online might certainly be a notable game, but just because it gets updated regularly is not a reason to keep a huge list of updates (WP:VGSCOPE No. 10) with numerous minor gameplay changes (WP:VGSCOPE No. 7). It is a subscription-based online multiplayer game, and from what I gather from the article and the Eve Online official website, it is updated constantly, free of charge, for every user. So unlike MMO's like World of Warcraft and its expansions, they are not optional and are in essence part of Eve Online right away, which the main article should reflect. Eve Online#Major content patches already shows, well, the major content patches, which are sufficient. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the details of each of the major content updates is probably notable content about Eve. This would normally go in the main article, except that there's so much detail that having a sub article seems like a reasonable solution for pure organizational purposes, and for ease of reading. Each of the updates is already getting a summary sentence in the main article, this provides more than a sentence for each. The main article links to this page as a "see more details" kind of thing. This is wikipedia's summary style executed perfectly. No reason to delete. Fieari (talk) 05:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Fieari:, thanks for your reply. The thing is, this article isn't about the major content updates, it's about every expansion. Like you said, there's so much detail that, to me, that's WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CHANGELOG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Soetermans. This article seems to be about every "named" update, which includes the major content updates as well. I could see an argument, if you made it, for cutting this article down to just the big updates, leaving out the smaller ones, but in that case, I'd still !vote for keeping the article itself, again, as a good use of summary style. That said, I don't have a problem with lumping in the smaller updates in with the big ones, given that this IS a spinoff article to provide more detail on a subject summarized in the main article. So... edit down if necessary (I don't think it is necessary, but YMMV), but definitely don't delete. Fieari (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - As a reader, this article is incredibly useful to me; as an editor I defer to Soetermans' knowledge of wikipedia policies and accept that this article is full of extraneous detail and reads like a changelog. Even as someone familiar with the material, I find Eve Online#Major content patches to be an unreadable mess. Perhaps this section of the main article could be improved rather like Star_Wars:_The_Old_Republic#Expansion_packs which is much more readable. However I am concerned that condensing 13 years of additions in this way would be impossible considering that the main Eve article is already too long and has a request on its talk page to be split up. If this page is to be kept it needs to be aggressively pruned so that only major new features and major changes to existing features are mentioned: This is the real value in the article and the detailed information can be gleaned from the the referenced patch notes and CCP's eve updates site. Ischloear (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. This is mostly a case of cleanup right now. The parent article has length issues and this is a reasonable split, but only if done summary style. Eve Online#Major content patches reads like a list instead of explaining what the patches did and why they were important... The article in question needs TNT—blow up all of the primary source stuff and only list the details that were important enough for secondary sources. Many of the minor patches with insignificant coverage should be excluded. Primary sources should only be used to fill in the cracks between reliable sources, not form the basis of the article. czar 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. Absolutely agree with Czar. No content explaining why these patches were important or significant.--176.104.110.11 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 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 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Sustainable Democracy Project

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

My searches have found nothing better at all and examining the listed sources simply showed nothing better at all, I attempted to retrieve the National Review link again but was unable to; there's nothing else to suggest any actual applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 23 June 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. joe decker ^talk 18:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Advantage – Oklahoma

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

This article is pure original research. It reads like something written for an economics homework assignment. There are no references that support the use of the phrase that is the article's title. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Jonesey95 says, this article is orginal research and has been tagged as such since the day it was created. I suppose it's possible that some of this content could be drastically rewritten and repurposed to add detail to Economy of Oklahoma, if someone expresses interest, but it would be virtually a complete restart to do so. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. This is an essay probably written for an assignment. The article subject is too specific as well (application to one particular state in one country). I don't see a need to keep this. Anyone wanting specialised topics such as this would probably look up google scholar. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not convinced by the sources and there's still overall questionability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 1 July 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 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Khayyam's 130th ruba'i

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

No stand-alone notability shown, and Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam already exists. The bulk of the article is just an English translation, which probably should be put on Wikisource not Wikipedia (providing it's in the public domain).01:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyshin (talk • contribs) 01:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all contain the same things: what the poem is about, the metre, the most famous English translation by FitzGerald, and 2-3 links that are either WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or translations: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyshin (talk • contribs) 01:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikisource if we still do that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Wikisource if needed, as there's certainly nothing convincing of any minimal standards of notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Wikisource if not there already. Doug Weller talk 07:33, 1 July 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 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Rizzolo

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

Notability not established. Nothing sourced to RS, and even looking at IMDB doesn't really tell me how well-known he might be. No GHits that aren't personal sites, Amazon, or other wikis. He hasn't even got an article in Italian WP. MSJapan (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have found nothing better at all and his list of works says it all, nothing minimally convincing of any better. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just added more information regarding discography. --Fadesga (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fadesga:: If the subject is to qualify under WP:NMUSIC, the song has to have charted, because the label doesn't appear to be notable (it only lasted a few years). The FIMI charts for Italy don't seem to go back far enough to get chart position for this particular artist, and discogs isn't RS for N, only V. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 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 and redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of São Tomé and Príncipe. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in São Tomé and Príncipe

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Only one diocese in the country. No reason to redirect a list article to the one and only entry in it, because it is misleading. MSJapan (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of one is wholly redundant to the article on the one. ~ Rob^Talk 06:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and above. A list with just one thing listed isn't really a list...so this article has no need to exist. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of São Tomé and Príncipe to round out Category:Lists of Roman Catholic dioceses by country and per WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- A list of one item is pretty useless. The alternative might be to place the diocese directly (though aberrantly) directly in what would have been the parent to the list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of São Tomé and Príncipe per nominator and Kvng. Graham (talk) 21:00, 28 June 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hipnosis (Italian band)

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

NN band that doesn't meet NBAND. Discography is 4 singles and an album, and only two singles charted (I'll assume it's correct even though it's sourced to discogs), both because they were covers, so I wouldn't even say the singles are notable, because neither of the covered songs have their own articles. MSJapan (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the band charted as high as a number 10th in Germany (as well as 14th in Austria and 19th in Switzerland [14]), I don't see how this is a "NN band that doesn't meet NBAND", on the contrary they meet, and not in a borderline way, WP:NBAND#2. The claim their singles "charted because they were covers" is obviously inaccurate, music history is full of cover versions by notable and non notable artists which did not chart, let alone charting that high. The German version of the article is sourced through the Frank Laufenbergs' Rock- und Pop-Lexikon ("Rock and pop encyclopedia"), and while coverage about Italo-disco artists is generally hard to find online, when they have charted that high it is almost certain it exists offline, particularly in European musical magazines of the time. Cavarrone 06:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, this is why it's articles for discussion. Honestly, it's fairly counterintuitive to look in the Belgian charts for German chart information, and the Swiss and German charts weren't available that far back (what was in English was discogs.com, which is not RS). I was able to source the other charting single to the Belgian charts as well (once I knew what I was looking for). However, there is no way I can take a foreign language source as correct and simply drop it into an article without seeing it, so the sourcing of the German article isn't pertinent. All that being said, if you can find me a repository of old European music mags, I'll certainly work on this some more. MSJapan (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I know it is counterintuitive, actually I found it just searching for hipnosis pulstar chart and the Ultratop website was the first result [15]. About Laufenbergs' encyclopedia, while I, too, have no intention to "drop" a foreign language source (or better, simply an offline source, the fact it is in a foreign language does not matter) into an article without seeing it and I never did it, the apparent inclusion of the band in a specialized encyclopedia edited by an apparently notable author sounds a good sign of notability (and again, this is not surprising considering they were quite successful in Germany!). About finding a repository of old European music mags, I'd love to find it somewhere... as a creator of several dozens of Italian musical bios which solely relies on offline sources I own, I can only testify that finding online sourcing for pre-1990s (but also pre-1995) Italian artists, except the ones who are still active and successful, is most of times impossible. Cavarrone 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I figured the discussion would close as keep given the new sources added, but as it hasn't, I'll withdraw it. MSJapan (talk) 05:56, 23 June 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 and redirect to Diocese of Djibouti. KaisaL (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Djibouti

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. There is only one diocese in Djibouti. Therefore, the list is never going to get any bigger, and the diocese already has an article. This list article is effectively functioning as an unneeded redirect to the article in question. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of one is wholly redundant to the article on the one. ~ Rob^Talk 06:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list with just one thing listed isn't really a list at all, so there really is no need for this article. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diocese of Djibouti. Alternatively that article should be placed directly in whatever ought to be the parent. For British peerages we have a list article giving all successive holders of the peerage and related ones. However, if there was only ever one holder, because the original grantee died without a son, or is still alive, the article on the title is a redirect to the bio-article on the holder. This is a practice that might conveniently be applied here. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Diocese of Djibouti per nominator and Peterkingiron. Graham (talk) 20:58, 28 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lee (designer)

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

Notability not objectively asserted, thus GNG is not met. His notability is predicated on his social media presence, but the claims about its significane are sourced to his own media. Other activities that might show notability are not independent sources. For example, his NOISPEC work at Platt lists both the subject and Creative Latitude (whom Lee also works for) as sponsors, so none of that is independent of the subject. Moderating a forum has never been an assertion of notability. The Forbes articles doesn't know what to make of him, either. Its first line is "Calvin Lee is either the leading indicator of a huge shift in marketing, or a footnote in Twitter’s history. Here is his curious story." As there does not seem to be any significant coverage of his work per WP:NARTIST, and only the one third-party source from 2010, GNG is not met, and the latter part of the Forbes statement appears to be true. MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just barely scrapes past A7. Having a large Twitter following doesn't make one automatically notable. The only third party source I found was this forbes article which talks about him. However, on closer analysis I realised this may not have been produced under editorial control (see notice "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.") As there are no other independent reliable sources talking about the subject, I have to conclude that he is not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 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. Default to keep. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Calling (sculpture)

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

Public sculpture that isn't notable. The only reference on this article is a dead end (the government department that it references has changed its name and I can't find the page). I can't find anything else to do with the sculpture, no significant coverage online and can't find anything to prove its notability. I've only found one single image of it, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 02:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's become a somewhat iconic sculpture for Belfast. Google "The Belfast Art Guide". It might be better to have an article for Paddy McCann, see his CV. His work is owned by the Arts Councils of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but doesn't seem to be in major museum collections. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a couple of decent references from periodicals. There is not a lot of reporting on the piece, but as StarryGrandma says, this is the kind of thing that unfailingly enters the public consciousness, as it is permanently installed. Just the creation of a permanent work, in public, could be considered to satisfy WP:ARTIST, in that the artist has created a major permanent public work. I'll bet 1 of every 100 local residents could tell you the name of the artist-- and that 99/100 could tell you where the sculpture is. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyValleyEditor: A public work does not simply make it notable, it ought to have coverage to justify an article on its own. The article just gives a description of what it actually is. I agree with StarryGrandma; the author ought to have his own article with a mention to this sculpture. --st170e^talk 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 23 June 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. No clear actionable consensus is emerging and debate is limited. @Caeciliusinhorto: The references you have referred in your comment are not all part of the article, it would be appreciated if you could add them as appropriate as the lack of sourcing appears to be a core objection here. KaisaL (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Galaxy Pageant

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

fails WP:GNG, largely unsourced and incomplete article The Banner talk 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Subject of scholarly discussion (Besnier: "transgenderism, locality, and the Miss Galaxy beauty pageant in Tonga"; "Crossing Genders, Mixing Languages: The Linguistic Construction of Transgenderism in Tonga" in Holmes and Meyerhoff The Handbook to Language and Gender. Leap, "Globalization and Gay Language" in Coupland The Handbook of Language and Globalisation) and news reporting ([16], [17], [18], [19]). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references mentioned by Caecilius are plainly and clearly sufficient for notability. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 23 June 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. joe decker ^talk 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Canada Galaxy

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

fails WP:GNG, no sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 22:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's information but nothing at all convincing for the actual notability and its improvements, which this needs. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 1 July 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. Although participation has been limited, nothing to suggest a reason to not go with the views expressed. KaisaL (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Six Nations

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 1 July 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 King Conquer. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposing Normality

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

Non notable EP. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to King Conquer. I found nothing to indicate that the album is notable, but I see no reason why it shouldn't at least be kept as a redirect while we have an article on the band. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article King Conquer for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings is met. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:24, 30 June 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. Two relists have not yielding additional comment and it does not appear consensus can be reached. KaisaL (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Dong

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

This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject is a Singaporean singer. The only significant coverage I found was this, all others were passing mentions. At this point, it passes neither WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO. Additionally, the article seems to have been created by someone associated with the subject's record label. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant press coverage and thousands of hits on Google. Also IMDb. You can look for more.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTSOFGHITS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Please show me some reliable independent sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Ipigott. ~~Again, we have another Third World article being held to first world standards.~~ This one needs to also be lised at del sort for Asian peoples. ( and [20], [21] Montanabw ^(talk) 02:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Again, we have another Third World article being held to first world standards. This one needs to also be lised at del sort for Asian peoples." What an absolutely condescending statement Montanabw. Seriously, I didn't expect this from you. Colonialism died years ago for goodness sake. As a "Third world" person, I am sick and tired of people from the "First World" looking at us with pity. Do you know that this attitude of trying to "save Third world people" is how colonialism started in the first place? And now on Wikipedia we have the same attitude - let's save articles on people from the Third World because, you know, their standards of notability may not match ours (the first world's).
I hope you reflect on what you just said because this is exactly similar to what the colonialists said when they first came to our lands. We all know that had they not come in the first place, we might have been much better.
As a "third world" editor, I totally object to having different (lower) standards of notability for "third world" articles Why? Because frankly, this strikes me as extremely patronising. It reinforces the age old myth that third world countries are somehow lower/less able than first world countries. I joined Wikipedia because I felt this was a neutral project where people with open minds collaborate. I liked the fact that standards are applied equally to everyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity etc. I loved the fact that in AfDs, editors would vote purely on notability. It made me feel as an equal participant and not as a "third world editor" participating in a "first world" dominated project. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. But if you really want to try, then please treat "third world articles" equal to "first world articles". Equality is preferable to condescending pity.
Which is why, I totally object to your vote - where no analysis of sources have been done, but a blanket statement has been provided which implies that "third world articles" deserve to be saved, because well, they are from the "third world". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- You misconstrued my statement, I think. I said what I said because I think that many articles on women and especially women from the third world are being unfairly targeted at AfD, and I think it is due in part to an unconscious systemic bias. (I also see a lot of "recentism" in some AfDs, though that isn't an issue here.) I also know that it is more difficult to locate the types of sources that the AfD crowd prefers for these articles, and sometimes the source material is not in English (Here, I see Chinese characters next to some of the articles about her, but not understanding Chinese, I cannot search farther for sources in that language), so verification is a challenge. It isn't holding anyone to a lower standard, its acknowledging reality. I prefer to err on the side of inclusion. I also know from working on issues related to women's history in the American West on and off for the last 30 years that sources on non-white, non-male people can often be more difficult to locate and when found are often dismissed as inadequate. So no patronization was intended, Lemongirl942 I'm making a realistic statement. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and I'm sorry for my outburst (I'm usually a calm person). Maybe I just hate the term "Third world" a bit too much (and somehow it triggered an emotional reaction). As for bias in Singapore, it is quite nuanced. English is the working language in Singapore and the vast majority of the population uses English (although we do have Chinese, Malay and Tamil media as well). In Singapore, all media is controlled by the government (except for certain blogs). Joanna Dong is associated with Mediacorp which runs all television stations here (and is one of the 2 main media companies in Singapore along with SPH). Artists who are affiliated with Mediacorp naturally get coverage in Mediacorp owned sources and SPH sources as well. The bias in Singapore is thus slightly different - actors NOT affiliated to Mediacorp tend to receive lower press coverage. What I see in this case is a Mediacorp affiliated artist who hasn't received enough coverage. (And this is not counting the fact that any Mediacorp related source in this case is not an independent source). In addition, the author of this article seems to have an undisclosed WP:FINANCIALCOI.
While I do agree that there is a Systemic Bias in Wikipedia (particularly with Asian/African/Latin American topics/Women), I do not agree on lowering notability standards - especially in the case of contemporary subjects for whom sources are available. In addition, advocacy editing (particularly those with a financial COI) is another form of bias and I don't want to encourage it either. Overall in this case, I see Joanna Dong as a rising star who may be notable in a year or two. But right now this is too soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

[22] Interview, Primary source. Also Sg Asia City is usually not used as a reliable source (it is a free ad-supported booklet which you can pick up at Malls around Singapore).
[23] Is a website relying on user generated content. Also the content has been copied from Mediacorp's website which has a profile on Joanna Dong as she is affiliated to it.
[24] Written by a Joanna Dong, but this is not the same Joanna Dong from Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess I am curious what standard Mediacorp uses to promote people in the first place (i.e. if being a part of their group confers a certain degree of talent or notability). I'll go to "weak keep" pending further clarification... Montanabw ^(talk) 08:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw In general, acting in a Mediacorp production (theatre, television, radio show) is not an indication of notability by itself. Mediacorp is the only TV broadcaster in Singapore, so they have a monopoly and they have many shows (not all of which are notable). An actor who acts in multiple notable productions is generally notable. Another indication is being nominated (more than once) for the Star Awards (see Star Awards 2016 for an example) where Mediacorp awards actors who have taken part in its productions. You can compare the coverage of Rui En and Jeanette Aw to "Joanna Dong". As a Mediacorp affiliated artiste, Joanna Dong should have had much more coverage, but that is not the case here. It should also be considered that Singapore is ultimately the size of NYC. It is much easier to get "national" coverage here. Despite all of these, Joanna has much less coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete instead as I have found a few links but there's at best still nothing particularly better, I could continue searching local news but this seems to suggest enough that there's simply nothing yet. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:19, 23 June 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. Convincing arguments made to keep the article. KaisaL (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Browder

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

Non-notable artist that doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE, made enough of a claim to not be A7, but sources do not indicate this person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had an exhibition at a museum New Museum and many others and seems to have generated enough attention in magazines and other publications for WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "exhibition" seems to have been one sculpture for a one-day event that was not even held at the New Museum. ([25], [26]). Hardly a full exhibition. The sources that are not self-published by the subject are literally one word mentions. The Gothamist piece just says she had a work displayed at the Kickstarter street party and the NYT mention (which I removed) was just her name appearing in a caption of a photograph for a piece on NYC art in which she isn't mentioned. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her exhibitions are short term because they are "wraps" of public buildings. I added more references to her article and she passes WP:GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A museum exhibition and quiet enough references to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 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. joe decker ^talk 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Los Angeles

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

fails WP:GNG . as many similar AfDs have been recently deleted there is no inherent notability. Someone commented this is just a cookie cutter series the opening line with a significant error just proves this " The Australian Consul-General in New York represents the Australian Government in Los Angeles". the article is based solely on primary sources. Let's see if the usual suspect turns up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES or WP:ADHOM arguments. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the line for inclusion should be Ambassador. Consul-General is a subordinate post and shouldn't be taken as notable per se. There should be specific reasons for CGs to be considered notable and a list of them shouldn't meet the standard for inclusion. MLA (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for its own listed article, best mentioned at the other complete and entire list. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 1 July 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 per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy Sal

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

Dave Brubeck was impressed enough by this jazz pianist to get him into the Berklee College of Music,[27] but he only has one[28] or two[29] album credits, far from enough for WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of material on Dizzy, who is described as " one of the finest pianists this country has produced" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 23 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Superior Human?

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

The only websites and reviews I can find on this film are from blogs and the producers themselves. Hell, putlocker shows up before any of those reviews (only below the Wiki article, a primary source, and IMDb). Film fails just about every metric we have on such things. However, if I'm just suffering from Google Search Idiocy, feel free to correct me. Primefac (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all films are notable (Wikipedia:Notability (films), and this one seems to be fail said policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google the film title can find many sources, such as the review from leading scientist

Marc Bekoff https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201204/the-superior-human-who-do-we-think-we-are

He is the author of several encyclopedia of animals. Plus the film has a high rating entry in IMDB, features notable people such as Gary Yourofsky, Drs. Steven Best, Bernard Rollin, and Richard D. Ryder.Fn2gf3431 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Fn2gf3431 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It looks like this is one of their blogs - does anyone know if they have an editorial process or are they posted "as is"? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, when I found it last night, it seemed to me that it's just a space for him to put his thoughts down. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 2:13 pm, Today (UTC+9)

Delete Non Notable fails WP:GNG --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most common way that a film becomes notable is through published reviews by professional film critics. The article claims that there have been over 100 reviews and provides a link to a list. I scrolled through that list and found no such professional reviews. Instead, I found amateur reviews by involved activists and random viewers. I found no significant coverage of the film in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic work in the form of film. As show in the sources, it is participated, reviewed and promoted by many world leading academics. You may not like the message, but you cannot deny the significance of the work. Good Wikipedians don't put personal view over neutrality Fn2gf3431 (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable, independent source that says that it is an "academic work in the form of film". Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

why you lawyering? It is evident,it is participated, reviewed and promoted by many world leading academics.Fn2gf3431 (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:NFILM. meets none of this criteria. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: Actually not quite so "clear", specially as documentary films have it far more difficult than do big-studio, major studio blockbusters... and here we have a tongue-in-cheek Australian doc film. But looking beyond the addressable issue of an article using poor sources, the authored WP:NEWSBLOG review in Psychology Today is fine under WP:RSOPINION, but we'd need more to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Be ware of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Below are quotes from WP:NF that are most relevant to the film. The film easily meets WP:NF for having multiple notable people

1) The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand"

2) The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

Fn2gf3431 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, please give us a reliable source that states #1, because as I read it: there is no unique accomplishment, it isn't a milestone in development, and doesn't seem to contribute to national cinema. As for #2, are you suggesting that this film is the only highlight these people's careers, that they will only be known for this film? If so, please provide evidence of this, because it certainly seems that they are mainly notable for other things (based on our Wikipedia pages). Primefac (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually read the article, the sources,the wikipedia policy and my comment, many people don't like animal rights. I am guessing you have anti-animal-rights bias too, so you nominate it for AfD

'Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have said in an open letter: How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, they are not fully representative of the diversity of the world. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a world wide movement to create and share free knowledge.'

1)What you are asking is already in the article. 'first documentary to challenge the common belief that humans are superior to other species of life.' from reference 2

2)No, I am not suggesting it, I suggest that the film features significant involvement by notable people and is a major part of their careers. Can you tell what we are saying are different?

Fn2gf3431 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fn2gf3431 Please refrain from making WP:ADHOMINEM attacks against other editors. This makes you look very, very bad by extension and usually only serves to put incoming editors on the defensive, as they have to question whether or not they will also be called "anti-animal-rights" if they do not agree with you. Attacking other editors can also lead to you receiving a block from editing if it continues. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searched for reliable sources and found none. Until significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent can be provided the article fails notability. Samf4u (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, at best, the listed coverage is still not enough and the consensus shows we would need better, delete and draft, if ever needed, at a later time. SwisterTwister talk 18:44, 26 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libby Tidley

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

An article about a singer-songwriter which seems to fail WP:MUSBIO. Her EP debuted at #11 on "iTunes Singer Songwriter Chats" (the fact remains unreferenced) which is one of the WP:BADCHARTS. She has received scarce coverage and has not achieved anything notable enough to warrant an article. Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. Ya sh ! 04:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person does not have enough Youtube views to be notable. No coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No references provided in article, no hits on google search other than her own social media efforts/promotions/youtube positing = no indication of notability that merits an encyclopedia entry. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:56, 26 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 3+1 Plan

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

Non notable book; part of a closed ring of publicity for the author and his company. The prize is trivial. See the linked articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Property Club & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Alegre-Wood DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reviews, does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my examinations have simply found nothing at all, it seems the best there is is for the award and that's still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like ST said, the only thing that this book has going for it is the award. At best the award would give partial notability, but I'm not altogether certain that the award is notable. That's another discussion entirely, although I'll note that the award is really only mentioned in passing in articles about people, which isn't a great sign of notability. In any case, the book doesn't pass notability guidelines since there appears to have been no reviews or in-depth coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:05, 25 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Alegre-Wood

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

He gives a lot of interviews, to get PR for his company. No reason why we should add to it. No other notability. See the linked articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Property Club & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 3+1 Plan DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no consensus that interviews help estabilish notability (see Wikipedia talk:Interviews), so - with no clearly reliable sources showing the subjects notability - I agree this is a promo piece that needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still certainly hinting at promotional, there's nothing minimally suggestive of better and nothing at all convincing. Overall information is still not helping for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that he's notable enough for an article. I'm one of the people that do think that interviews could be used to establish notability, depending on the interview. If he's just getting brought in to ask questions about a general topic then no - that wouldn't be usable. In these interviews the answerer is fairly replacable with anyone that is knowledgeable about the topic. If he's answering questions about himself, his company, or his book, then those could count, as long as it's in a RS. However I've found nothing to suggest that he's received this type of interview in a place Wikipedia would consider to be reliable and the impression I get is that his interviews are the former - he comes in to talk about things, but he's not the focus of attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer and promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just promotion. Google search came up with no notable media companies.Simplespeed4ce (talk) 03:30, 30 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Property Club

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

The head of the firm gives a lot of interviews, to get PR for his company. No reason why we should add to it. No other notability. See the linked articles in this close dcircle of publicity: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Alegre-Wood & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 3+1 Plan. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far certainly nothing actually convincing and the coverage is also not convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't anything out there about the company and the owner being pulled in to comment on various issues wouldn't show notability for him, let alone for the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 25 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Book Prize (UK)

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

No evidence thatt his is a notable award, especialy since almost none of the people it has been awarded to seem to be notable DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (awards) (which will hopefully get finished), and in the meantime, WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the article but still found nothing to suggest any actual solid independent notability of its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found mention of the award in local articles about the winners, but nothing that specifically focuses on the award itself. To establish this we'd need something written about the awards or at least a list of the award recipients. I didn't see that while searching. There were tons of false positives for a separate award given out by the Royal Society, but not really anything for this award. On a side note I also saw that the award's social media accounts had a fairly low amount of followers. This by itself doesn't count for or against notability, but it's usually not a great sign when an award organization has a fairly low amount of people following them on social media, as it means that they likely haven't received coverage. This isn't a guarantee, but it's usually pretty telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 25 June 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. Much like the first discussion, there is no clear consensus here and we have two sides sticking to their guns. The previous AFD was only closed three months ago and it does not appear anything has changed. I do not feel a relisting is appropriate in light of the clear split and the unlikelihood that further discussion would yield an actionable outcome. Before relisting I would implore anyone reading these concluding comments to read this and the first nomination and ask yourself whether new information has come to light that is likely to lead to a consensus to delete. KaisaL (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Meneley

AfDs for this article:

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

meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the present article. Where are the works in the permanent collections of museums? Where is the substantial published criticism of her work? There are two scholarly articles listed, one she wrote, one is a article contain sections written by different artists, one of which is her. Neither of these are about her. I sse local newspaper articles about a local artist--this never meets the GNG because it is not sufficiently selective. I see various blogs and informal publications, none of which show notability.

This is the product of an editathon, one where most of the articles created there have been already deleted. I very much support the goals of art+feminism, and helped lead with some of the NYC workshops. I advise people at such events to work first on the unambiguously notable, specifically in order to keep the work from being not just rejected, but even questioned, and i would certainly have advised against the creation of this article. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 13:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Agricola44 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG. The idea that local sources are not reliable independent sources is absolutely wrong: local sources are independent, published sources. She is in the Regina Leader-Post in 2 cited articles. Aside from those sources, however, she is also written about at the Canadian Art foundation and is part of two scholarly articles from the RACAR: revue d'art Canadienne/ Canadian Art Review on her work on JSTOR. The fact that this was a product of an editathon is irrelevant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Art link is a press release, not a reliable source. freshacconci talk to me 01:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RACAR article "Practices: As if from nowhere… artists’ thoughts about research-creation" is written by each represented artist: Meneley wrote her own section and there's only a brief mention in the article intro. I don't see a second RACAR article in the references. Since Meneley is the co-author, this cannot be used as a reliable source. freshacconci talk to me 01:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i don't see in WP:BASIC anything about significant criticism or "local coverage/sources don't count", instead i see "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable..." and if some sources are not of substantial depth "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" so the Regina Leader articles should be ok. Meneley is also the recipient of a 2015 Saskatchewan Foundation for the Arts Award in/for intermedia[30] (although this may also be seen as trivial/non-significant?) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Saskatchewan Foundation for the Arts awards are not awards in the conventional sense. They are grants. Meneley received $3000-6000 (the link doesn't specify which) to "support the development and completion of a series of interactive and kinetic book works." Artists' grants do not establish notability as they are a regular part of being a professional artist. Much like exhibitions, they only establish that the artist exists and produces work, not that they are notable. freshacconci talk to me 13:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically for reasons in first AfD: this person isn't notable so much as "locally famous" within the feminist Regina art scene. The common feeling about local sources, here expressed by Megalibrarygirl (above), has an important caveat: while we can assume they're reliable, they really only prove existence (they're not selective). It would be an entirely different matter to be in any of the larger metro or national papers (WaPo, WSJ, LAT, NYT, USAT, CT, etc) – that would be a slam dunk. David astutely pointed all this out in the lede (along with an extensive disclaimer so as not to be accused of bias). The other sources are mostly blogs and I hope this does not end-up like the previous AfD, which was mostly based on WP:ILIKEIT. Contrary to one of David's statements, many of the articles from that editathon have not been deleted, but they certainly should be re-examined, as they all have the same question of whether their subjects are just "locally famous". My interpretation of articles like this remains the same: the goal seems to be to create articles on people that some group feels is under-represented, rather than letting the organic process of article creation on notable, encyclopedic people happen naturally, the result being a raft of new bios on increasingly obscure individuals. Unchecked, it will gradually keep pushing WP to nothing more than an online directory. Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Even if a subject is "locally famous" that can be enough to pass GNG. The assertion that local sources are not selective is incorrect. Local sources certainly are selective: they write about people who are notable in the community. I agree that this article is not a "slam dunk," but I think the sources are sufficient for GNG taken all together. I'm not !voting WP:ILIKEIT-- I don't care about who she is or about her art: she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl's point within itself surpasses in importance but is given further support by the additional aspect that a deep search discloses that the "local" sources were run in mirrored syndication in several province's media (particularly BC). My researches found that the search engines mostly credited these to the local point of origin e.g. Regina Leader as is apparently Canadian custom, and within the article's references list these mirrors were appropriately not listed off separately as if they were completely different articles. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regional recognition is enough to pass GNG, and here we have that. Coverage in neutral, third-party sources exists and it is enough. Regina, Saskatchewan is a major regional center, and when you add in her ethnographic work, that also is a factor to consider strongly in keeping. People who work with First Nations issue and ethnography often do not get the coverage in the mainstream press that the average rapper can get for spitting on the sidewalk. This individual is an artist who meets GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Leader Post is one of the two largest newspapers in Saskatchwan. Articles in the American press as cited above "larger metro or national papers (WaPo, WSJ, LAT, NYT, USAT, CT, etc)" are irrelevant for a Canadian artist. As there are only two national papers in Canada, both based in Toronto, being reported in the newspaper of the capital of the province is significant and combined with the other sources Blackfish and Horowitz reviews, meets the threshold of GNG, which does not exclude local or regional sources. Inclusion of her works in permanent collections of museums is but one criteria, as is significant critical attention, of creative professionals. As was pointed out in the previous AfD, her work, Prairie History Redux was the primary exhibit in a six-month-long curated exhibition, which meets "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" of "creative". The doomsday prediction of nothing more than an online directory, is a tired argument for IDON'TLIKEIT SusunW (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, the RACAR article is co-written with Meneley. As a reliable source, it's not useful. The only sources that are currently given that are not apparently connected to Meneley are the Leader Post reviews and Blackflash. The task here is to evaluate those sources to see if they go beyond brief mentions and if those few sources are enough for GNG. freshacconci talk to me 19:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While you suggested it, I see no co-author credit. Meneley and other artists were interviewed they aren't co-authors. The analysis of all of the artists' statements is done by Horowitz. When one challenges every single comment which is not in agreement with one's own, it begins to look like one is badgering others and not AGF that they have analyzed the material objectively. SusunW (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out what I consider to be an error is badgering? Talk about not assuming good faith. This is a discussion. It is meant to go back and forth until a clear consensus is reached. If someone posts something in error, it's anyone's obligation to point it out. As for the RACAR article, there is a very short introduction, 2.5 pages. The rest is statements by the artists, each starting with "by Barbara Meneley" etc. That is a co-authorship. And there is a working relationship with the credited author and the artists, thus bringing the issue of conflict of interest to the fore. I'm not suggesting it's a COI to work together and collaborate on a peer-reviewed journal. However, to use that as a second-party source is highly questionable. freshacconci talk to me 00:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you repeatedly point it out. However, policy states she must meet GNG "or" Creative. Within the criteria of creative all criteria do not have to be met, either A, B, C or D. Thus, I think she meets both standards, which is more than enough. When the Smithsonian says the average temporary exhibit is 2-6 weeks and several other sites suggest 6-8 weeks maximum, it seems clear that a 6 month exhibit is a significant one. The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts surveyed museums of Canada and found that there was no standard exhibit time, but a typical range was from "4 weeks per year to 6 months". They also recommended that exhibitions on paper or which were light sensitive never exceed "20 weeks", i.e. 5 months, of exhibition, adding weight that a 6 month exhibition is a substantial one. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like the same dynamics from the first AfD are playing-out here. Would the proponents of keeping the article consider the following? We remove all the blogs, pamphlets, museum programs/announcements, etc. from the source list, which would subsequently allow us to have a much more focused discussion on those sources upon which there is no dispute. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No improvement since the first Afd. Sources are local interest only, no national or international sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete for the same reasons I gave in the first AfD (weak and local coverage), with the hope that this AfD will not be as overrun by special pleading for lowered standards for biographies of disadvantaged groups as we had the previous time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about fair standards for groups that are routinely ignored, belittled and dismissed? That works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 08:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As I said, the posture is pretty much the same as in the first AfD: advocating for less bias versus maintaining standards. Articles like this will come to AfD again and again unless there is some way to settle the issue somewhat more permanently. I proposed above removing all blogs, pamphlets, museum programs/announcements, etc. from the source list, which would subsequently allow us to have a much more focused discussion on those sources upon which there is no dispute. What do you think of this idea? It may allow us to move forward in a more objective way. Agricola44 (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep There seem to me to be 3 main aspects. 1: As SusunW has convincingly elucidated, the sources and context show that the subject of the article meets one of the CREATIVE guidelines (4b). As written currently, only one element needs to be met -- not all. Thus much of the criticism as not meeting other parameters is technically off topic. The situation is problematic only because A) 4b is quite obviously the "weakest" of the elements listed, and I would imagine uniquely expands the CREATIVE pool as a single parameter more than any other element, and because B) the subject does meet the benchmark but only by a narrow margin. In general, I would not be opposed at all to seeing 4b rewritten to tighten it up. (It seems to me that this would likely be the essence of where User talk:Agricola44's thoughts would end up tapping into from another direction.) 2: As SusunW's careful visiting of the sources also finds, the Horowitz editorial's analysis of the subject's context is national level recognition. As has already been stated, it is independent of the subject despite the confusion of some input above. The editorial itself makes this clear enough, explicitly stating that the named editor worked with the journal's established editorial pool, and explaining the approach that was taken. (If there is "special pleading", and I am not sure there is, its legitimacy would come from what is overtly stated in that academic source.) That said, the depth of Horowitz' analysis could be judged by some as less than comprehensive and the style of the editorial is quite academic and far from a nice read. Additional points for and against the editorial were included in my input at the first AfD; further reference can be made there rather than pulling every point to this AfD. 3: I have always judged this article as fence-straddling and difficult to categorize, which is consistent with the obvious challenge both AfDs have had in trying to get to a consensus. The community has become more selective in the parameters accepted for porn star notability over the years. We could certainly tighten up the standards for medieval bishops some day I suppose. Accordingly, if the purpose of this early repeat AfD is to "guage the temperature" for working toward resetting 4b with more selective language, using this as a precedent, then I would understand and be completely comfortable changing my input here as an immediate courtesy to DGG. However, if this AfD's task is to categorize the article within the present framework, it's a weak but clear keep. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:29, 30 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travelgirl

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

its been published since 2003, and has never obtained any notability. There are a frw mentions of people appearing on the cover. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage requirement not met, even within the news cycle. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. Non-notable magazine. Google hits are for notices from those featured in the magazine. Even a barely notable magazine should be generating dozens of hits. MLA (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticed this earlier, there's still nothing convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 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. May be WP:TOOSOON which editors should bear in mind should the article be recreated in the future. KaisaL (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lifepack

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

non notable and promotional. A Yahooseach,cited in the edit history as providing refs, gets a large number of the usual press releases and notices. Based on all the other stuff that shows in in such searches, , there's actually nothing unusual about a backpack with a solar charger, and certainly not of a lockable backpack. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two Yahoo references are dead. Only one remains and that is insufficient to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur with the analysis, my examinations have also found nothing better at all and it's clear this is still at the funding stages thus not yet better for notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, found this article from The Province - "Lifepack: B.C. inventor gets huge Kickstarter response to anti-theft backpack"[31], but not enough to keep, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added fashion and technology projects to this article's talkpage so it appears on their article alert lists. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 24 June 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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming. Article does need improvement and particularly more depth of content. KaisaL (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pallak Lalwani

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

This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject is an Indian actor who has recently acted in a newly released movie. Almost all coverage of her in reliable independent sources just mention her in passing, usually in an article about the movie. I found some articles with a bit more substantial content like [32] and [33], but both of these seem like WP:SPS to me (the second link in particular). At this moment, there is not enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. All coverage about her is only in the context of this movie which makes it kind of BLP1E. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC) There has also been COI editing going on here with the intent to promote an upcoming actress who has starred in only 1 movie till date. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest this deletion, As I am the author of this article, I have clearly mentioned first person news articles from reliable sources. Request you to recheck and untag deletion. Thank you! Barney83Stinson (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as there are only 2 works so far and this amount and also size of coverage is expected considering there's simply nothing else convincing, delete until there's better substance. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two articles with substance and not self-published, additional mentions in other sources. Not great but adequate indicia of passing GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG with articles in major independent Indian news. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some of these major independent Indian news. The two links I pasted above do not seem to be very reliable. In fact, one of them is purely local [34] and the other one [35] seems like a self-published site to me (with loads of advertisements). That combined with the fact that the subject has only appeared in one movie till date. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 02:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 June 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. hoax and WP:Snow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo LA Full Car List (2016)

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

Pure WP:GAMECRUFT. Contested PROD. I can't see anything encyclopaedic here or any possibility of such. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly speedily. Is there even such a version of Gran Tourismo? I think this is a hoax. --Whpq (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD-er, per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 03:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 03:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A11. "Gran Turismo Los Angeles" does not exist, it's WP:MADEUP. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete WP:GAMECRUFT materials. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 13:33, 23 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pravesh Lal Yadav

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

This article on an Indian actor was twice speedily deleted. The third attempt indicates that he might be notable, but the references given - and those I found - do not suffice to establish that he is. The level of coverage amounts to "Yadav was, among others, present at event X." Huon (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had reviewed and tagged this for deletion the March 2016 one, there's still nothing for actual deletion and I have found nothing else better. Indian sources have found quite a few news links but it still seems questionable, I would be willing to Draft instead if needed, but only with the assurance it will not be restarted here again. SwisterTwister talk 00:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; the coverage is wholly insubstantial and fails Wp:GNG, with no depth at all besides trivial mentions. GAB^gab 01:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems to throw many different issues (singer, actor, athlete) against the wall in hopes that something sticks. Nothing does.--Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - editor seems to have serious competence problems. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Khan (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F A Khan - in both of those the sources are about a different person. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 24 June 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.