Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 December	3 December >

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. There is a clear consensus to keep. The question about an appropriate article title is deferred to the article talk page. (

non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Garry Hoy

)

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

Classic ~~BLP1E~~BIO1E even though he's long since dead. We don't unfold BLP1E articles into a BLP after a subject dies. This material should be moved into the "falling through window" article Which Hazel? (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that the individual himself may not be notable, the event itself seems to be. Perhaps a simple rename to "Death of Gary Hoy" will suffice?
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The article in question seems to pertain more to a specific event than the individual in question. I agree with
A Thousand Doors that the event is notable and agree that a rename is probably in order. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I really don't care one way or the other, but thought this event would fold nicely into Defenestration Which Hazel? (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to
Darwin Award, and re-enacted in several films and television shows and at least one novel. In addition to the sources cited in the article, more are easily found by a web search, and at least one additional example of the event being depicted in fiction is mentioned on the article's Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Dude threw himself through a window. Rename as appropriate if desired. Herostratus (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question I've spent (or wasted, depending on your POV) about an hour looking for RS covering this "event". It appears those who have commented thus far agree (as do I) that the bar for
WP:EVENT needs to be met. However based upon my research I'm not seeing any coverage that reaches this threshold. Indeed, from WP:EVENT in part reads (emphasis added by me) Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. To me, this clearly falls (no pun intended) into "shock" news sort of event with no enduring significance. Pretty much every source out there treats this like weird-news. Can anyone find sources that establish that this event is notable? If so, I'd be perfectly happy to move the article to "The death of Garry Hoy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Which Hazel? (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep To nominator: BLP1E doesn't apply to dead people, even if the event occurred while the person is alive. That would mean virtually every
WP:BIO1E has BLP issues. Hoy's death has been covered, repeatedly, in media around the world for years: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Perhaps a requested move discussion can occur, but an AfD isn't the appropriate place to start that discussion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not convinced those sources satisfy
WP:EVENT. The Globe and Mail article, for example, is a trivial mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The point of EVENT is to prevent run of the mill local coverage from making it into WP. As you can see from
WP:EVENTCRIT, coverage years later and from international sources would mean it's notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event appears to be notable, but I agree with many above that the article should probably be renamed to Death of Garry Hoy or The self defenestration of Garry Hoy. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Churchill

Daniel Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability has not been established as a chef, an author, or a TV performer. Lack of reliable independent sources. WWGB (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:WWGB. Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing even for general notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has gotten a bit of tabloid coverage (such as here and here), but looks short of the substantial coverage from
reliable sources that I would look for. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in hockey by nation

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

~~Very much a~~
WP:SYNTH violation. This sets forth the proposition that any sport with "hockey" in the name is comparable (except when it isn't), as well as that the IOC is the guarantor of what qualifies as athletic achievement or not. It also equates "major achievements" by nation through the respective national teams' performance at IOC-sanctioned world championships, completely a SYNTH violation. No sources discussing the concept as a concept. Ravenswing 21:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawing the AfD. The changes ThiagoSimoes has made to restrict this table to field hockey removes my objections. Ravenswing 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the article and I received a notification stating that this article is being considered for deletion. First and foremost, it is important to notice that hockey is an umbrella term. The current version of the article about hockey in wikipedia clearly shows that by listing different versions and variations. As a way to streamline the scope of the article, I focused on the variations that are governed by international federations currently recognized by the International Olympic Committee. While it is not "the guarantor" of athletic achievement, it is widely respected and easily recognizable by a huge number of people around the planet.

Second, the discussion about the sports being comparable or not must be taken further to other pages in order to achieve consensus for what variations should be included on the hockey article. Besides, the article about roller hockey states that "Roller Hockey is played on both Quad skates and Inline skates, have different rules and equipment, and involve different types of skating but share the category and name of Roller Hockey." If we are to believe that the sports are not comparable, the very simple concept of roller hockey endorsed by the Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports (quad and inline under the roller hockey label) would be challenged.

Third, this is part of a series of articles about achievements in sports, and based on what I previously explained, the content lists what it is supposed to list. Since there are many variations of the sport listed here, maybe changing the title of the article to "Major achievements in hockey sports by nation" could remedy potential complains, if there is one at all

Finally, all of the results of the tournaments listed on the article are widely available online. I also provided links to every article containing the results of the tournaments, and have added external links and references that could be checked for confirmation. This is no original research since the results were previously available in Wikipedia and online. There is also no new conclusion being reached; if we are to believe there is one thanks to the ranking system, then all of the ranked medal tables within Wikipedia must be deleted from all of the articles containing one.

The main purpose of the article is to inform and help improving popularity of different hockey sports, providing one easily accessible source of information linking together different articles while, at the same time, displaying a list of countries that performed well enough to reach a medal result in a major tournament in hockey. At this time, there are eight other articles that do the same thing for gymnastics, football, volleyball and other sports. So far, the content of the articles have never been challenged by the community.

Nevertheless, I would like to know from other users what they think about the article and how it can be improved in any form. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gymnastics is ONE sport, with ONE recognized international sanctioning body. Association football is ONE sport, with ONE recognized international sanctioning body. Volleyball is ONE sport, with ONE recognized international sanctioning body. A table like this for bandy (say) and bandy alone would meet appropriate standards. This portmanteau of several completely different sports does not. Ravenswing 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that gymnastics is not governed by only one body: there is FIG, and there is also FISAF, as well as IFAAG and IRV. Football has FIFA, FIFUSA/AMF and WMF. If you have problems with many different sports being added to the list, then you should be discussing what sports should be added to the article about hockey in the very first place. At first you were complaining about the IOC being used as the only source of guaranteeing athletic achievement, but now you are trying to rely on one single definition of a sport. So, what sport hockey is? If you assume hockey is ONE sport, then we should consider field hockey (and its indoor variant) the only existing version of the sport, since it is governed by the International Hockey Federation. If we consider hockey to be any sport with the word hockey within its title, then ice hockey and roller hockey also qualify. If we take the definitions used in Wikipedia's own article about hockey, then the other sports listed there could also be considered hockey.

In order to comply with the content of the hockey article, I decided to add bandy and floorball as well. But if you believe this is a source of confusion for readers, I agree about removing bandy and floorball from the list, keeping the other versions of hockey that are titled hockey in the list. If you think it should receive a new title, something like "Major achievements in hockey sports", or "hockey variations", or anything else, I would also agree to change the title. If this makes the article more streamlined in your opinion, I see no problem in doing that. However, I strongly believe this implies some sort of "cleanup" would be needed in the main hockey article. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you genuinely believe that authorities that claim to govern indoor soccer or futsal are comparable to FIFA's sway over association football (and that they constitute the same sports as association football), or that the Finnish sport of "aesthetic group gymnastics" or competitive aerobics are what people have in mind when they discuss world-class gymnastics ... well, 'nuff said. Ravenswing 11:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that the IOC cannot be considered the only source for defining what athletic achievement is. I mentioned that there are different bodies governing the sports, so that FIFA cannot be considered the only source for athletic achievement in football, or FIG in gymnastics. Now, I am supposed to believe it is absurd to expect that. This completely contradicts your own arguments. FIFA considers the tournaments organized by BSWW (the governing body of beach soccer prior to FIFA officially recognizing it) as official tournaments. In 1989 there was a meeting to discuss whether the tournaments organized by FIFUSA could be considered official tournaments or not. Trampoline World Championships were organized by FIT before 1999 and currently the FIG considers the events to be official events. Historically, variations of a sport are eventually accepted by the official federations. Of course this cannot be taken for granted, but there is enough evidence in history.

Besides, there is a reason why aesthetic group gymnastics was not added to my list in gymnastics, and aerobics is an official discipline recognized by FIG. I did not create the lists out of the blue. Sensible choices have been made and the content of all the lists have been widely accepted by the communities. This is the only list that is challenged by a group of fans of one variation of the sport. What you are trying to do is impose a single point of view as the truth, since this discussion was added to an Ice Hockey related group. It seems to me that you and the people who believe Ice Hockey is the true hockey consider it absurd to mention other variations as part of the same sport. What you fail to understand is that it completely contradicts what the Wikipedia article about hockey says at all. What I gather from all the comments here is immense bias towards the other variations. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A minor comment - I don't believe we are defending "true hockey" as ice hockey, I think we are trying to point out that on a nationally competitive level, there is no crossover from field hockey, ice hockey, bandy, floorball, ect. The wikipedia article on hockey is far more about the origins and evolution of the related sports (and how the term "hockey" might be used colloquially) and there are no other articles (or sources that I have found) relating the sub-types of hockey, including their respective international competitions. Yosemiter (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:This is not the place for this. There is nothing on the page that implies that these sports results are compared in encyclopedias or media so whether the results are comparable is trivial at best. Ranked medal tables are provided by the IIHF and FIH (for example), so they are appropriate on their respective pages and is not relevant to whether this page is valid or not.
18abruce (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

If the main source of problem is the ranked system, listing the countries in alphabetical order would devoid the list of any possible accusation of violation of guidelines. Besides, the scope of the list should not be restricted to discussions in North America, or Ice Hockey, since the sport is merely one of the variations listed. Administrators must be aware that conclusions reached here could potentially be biased since the discussion was not taken to a bigger group of people who could be interested on the article. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not the main source of the problem. Ranked or not, find something encyclopedic or media related that compares these sports and then you have may have a reason for the article to exist.
18abruce (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

What you are (and everybody else is) saying is that one should not assume that the article hockey could be taken as a guideline or starting point. It baffles me that the fact that the sports are grouped together in the main article on Wikipedia about the sport should not be seen as enough evidence for the list to be made the way it was. If the countries are not ranked, then the sports are not being compared; they are merely being listed together under the same group, provided there is a precendent reason in the hockey article. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countries are now listed in alphabetical order. The list is now comparable to
List of iOS devices, since no conclusions can be reached and it merely lists information that is linked to other pages on Wikipedia. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. People don't agglomerate the different forms of hockey together, any more than they do, say, baseball and softball. "Major achievements" also doesn't quite work either. One possible solution (stress on possible), as mentioned above, is to split this up into the individual sports. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I find this page (and the entire series that mentioned about the other sports Template:Achievementsinsports) confusing and actually less informative than the much more specific articles that already exist such as List of IIHF World Championship medalists. Other things about the pages that I find irritating is the links to specific countries or general sports pages. You list only their top achievements in each internationally recognized competition but no links the countries specific team or organizations. So if I wanted to check when Great Britain last won Gold in field hockey in the Olympics (or how many times), I would have to sort through several links just to get there, in which case Google would be faster, defeating what seems to be the intended purpose of a list such as this. (Also Field hockey at the Summer Olympics already exists and tells me everything I wanted to know about said subject) Yosemiter (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general purpose of the lists is to inform the readers about the highest achievements a given nation achieved at one specific tournament or competition. It is impossible to link to specific teams since either 1) Wikipedia does not have a page for (most, if any) of them (such as in Gymnastics) or 2) there are different pages for men's and women's teams, making it impossible to provide one single link (field hockey, ice hockey and so on). Besides, the articles are supposed to provide an overall look about the performances of the countries. If people want specific information, they can look for it in the corresponding articles. Complaining about such thing is like saying people should be able to see where iPhones are being sold in their hometown when reading about differences between iPhone versions. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you misunderstand what I meant. What I was asking for is more like searching a list of iPhones for when the iPhone 3GS was released and what operating system it has. This list is more like a general list of phone manufacturers who once sold a top selling phone at some point in time. My point is that the list is a compilation of semi-related and better formed lists. This all just seems too vague and seems to be
WP:SYNTH
since is an extrapolation assuming that a country's competitive various national hockey teams are somehow related.
I understand your point now, but I am still genuinely surprised that the opinions here entirely contradict what is listed on the article hockey. It looks like the article tries too hard to define what hockey might be, but at this point of the discussion here there are far too many people who are only able to state what hockey is not. ?What I understand from all the comments is that hockey is not something that can be assumed as many different sports under the same name, but this is precisely what the main article is about. Should it be deleted then to avoid confusion in the future as well? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the separated and moved page is certainly better more informative since it is now only about field hockey this still seems a bit
International field hockey tournaments. "Major achievements" just seems to be vague and arbitrary in its current format. Having total medal counts is more typical on most individual lists (separating gold/silver/bronze); as it appears now, winning one gold and no other medals is comparable to winning one gold and ten other medals (in the history of the same tournament). If both this (improved) table and the info already in the list of field hockey tournaments were merged I think it would give a more thorough understanding of what is being listed. The result would be one page containing links to all tournaments and how generally successful its participants were over time. Yosemiter (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I like this idea. The list if fairly small when compared to other sports (especially gymnastics, judo and swimming), so merging it with
international field hockey tournaments
is a great solution.

My original intention was to create a list for gymnastics, since finding information about specific tournaments is somewhat confusing and time consuming for "non fans" of the sport. There are many of them in five different disciplines, and right now 60 different countries got a medal of any kind. It worked quite well for gymnastics, and swimming as well. But I guess that when it comes to team sports, there are few different federations that organize many major tournaments to the point of making it confusing for people to follow the action (FIVB is the only one that comes to mind, and maybe FIFA). -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more change to the original article. I deleted the entries for Bandy and Floorball. If people still complain about it and think it should be deleted, just go ahead and delete the whole article. I do not plan to create a new article for any variation of this sport ever again. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, the best judge of your time, as well as of the work it suits you to do on Wikipedia. I admit to being unclear as to its relevance to this deletion discussion. Ravenswing 11:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that for the most part the hockey article is the only article that is really needed for hockey, the sub-types are the extension of that topic individually. There probably wouldn't be much sense on combined articles for all the topics other than the parent hockey article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the content of the article should be split between different articles. I said I do not plan to do that. How is this not relevant to the discussion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I think the author is missing is that actual articles or books (ie sources) have to have been written that talk about the combination of those sports wins. Individually they have most definitely been written about, but I doubt you will find sources that discuss the fact that X country won 20 ice hockey championships, 10 field hockey championships and 5 bandy championships etc. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am ok with this now that it is about a single sport. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITATAFD. Thank you, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
It happens regularly and in this case would actually have been worse to not do it. See
WP:IAR. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I get what the article creator was trying to do, but this is still a
WP:SYNTH problem. Primarily, The fact that various sports contain the word "hockey" does not create a significant link that justifies a list such as this. It would be like building a list of nations that have won at Soccer, Gridiron football, Aussie Rules Football and Rugby. They are all codes or descendants of football, but not really related when discussing international achievement. So for that reason, I don't see the value of ranking countries by highest achievement in various random sports. Personally, however, I personally would be more supportive of a list that ranks number of championships in events sanctioned by an individual governing body. So, for instance, IIHF sanctioned events. Reso lute 17:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep revised version, per my comment above, specifically, containing the list to titles by a single governing body. Reso lute 17:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what I originally planned, I decided to edit the article once again and now it only covers
indoor field hockey, two variations officially recognized and governed by the International Hockey Federation. Please ignore the previous comments and kindly state if you think the current article could be kept. Also, if people decide to keep the article, can it be moved to "Major achievements in field hockey by nation"? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Just an addendum: I followed the suggestion about splitting the content of the article and now there is a version for roller hockey. I will not create versions for ice hockey, bandy or floorball, since there are only two major world tournaments between national teams for ice hockey, one for bandy and two for floorball. I hope the articles now follow all the proposed guidelines. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If outstanding delete !voters (
18abruce—Clarityfiend—Yosemiter) would reconsider, this discussion may be closed under SK#1. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no objection to the article as it is now.
18abruce (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I change my vote to Merge with
International field hockey tournaments to make a complete article (this table could be considered an overall results summary of the list there). Otherwise, I have no objection to its existence as is (possibly with improvements (such as total medal counts for gold, silver, and bronze since even a bronze medal from a country that has also one a gold at one point could be considered a "major achievement"). Yosemiter (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deux Furieuses

Deux Furieuses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a band which makes and sources no strong claim of notability per
WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the sourceability and a stronger NMUSIC claim show up. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – Doesn't meet
WP:BAND. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to even suggest general notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Cockeysville Middle School (Cockeysville, Maryland)

Cockeysville Middle School (Cockeysville, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

It's a middle school with no evidence of any particular notability. The editor who is creating it says that it is notable, but nothing in his/her first 12 edits to the article suggests this. Redirecting to the school district was reverted by the creating editor. An AfD result of "Redirect" would be helpful. The school was deleted at AfD in 2007 as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockeysville Middle School. PamD 20:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still collecting info on the school. Having produced the First Lady of Maryland, a NASA astronaut, and the CollegeHumor co-founder seems notable to me. There's still A LOT more to be added. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per
NRHP). Numerous inclusions on the national Blue Ribbon Schools list will sometimes do it. Having a very large (>50) number of notable grads in one field might point to having a notable program in the school, but that would have to be verified by solid reliable sources independent of the school and geographically disperse. Example: If there were 70 notable actors from this school and you could find newspaper or magazine articles about the drama program, some from outside the Baltimore-DC metroplex, then maybe you might have notability. In short, there is no way this article gets kept, and I hate to see you wasting time on it. Almost all the Baltimore area high schools need reference work in their athletic sections. Hint, hint. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per
talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kochavi

Amit Kochavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject has coverage only in tabloid media that are not considered as reliable references. Fails
WP:BIO. Ireneshih (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not meet
WP:RS because there is "no significant coverage".Pixarh (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this article live because he has repeating "significant coverage" in Israeli media including
talk) 05:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I simply see no convincingly better improvement aside from some News and browsers links and I would've also suggested restoring the original 2011 redirect but I'm not seeing how and why it should (different name and no obvious connection between the two). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is not clear why there was a redirect, it is a clear delete.Ireneshih (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ,
WP:RS is met with Yisrael Hayom, that is not a tabloid, and I think the subject does meet BIO and notability, it could certainly use some enhancement but the subject matter and content don't meet the criteria set forth in the nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously self-promotion, fails GNG. The only serious coverage is a short article in a second-rate Israeli newspaper. The rest are trendy media websites. A quick googling in Hebrew revealed that his name has some 3,000 hits (including social media, forums etc.), but even that he shares with some college professor named Hanna Amit-Kochavi who seems more notable. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahmood Quadri

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Syed Mahmood Quadri

Articles for deletion/Syed Mahmood Quadri (2nd nomination)

Syed Mahmood Quadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Re-submitting for deletion discussion as the previous discussion received no contributions whatsoever. Rationale: does not satisfy
WP:BIO. Google, with a total of 15 (!) search results, does not point to any mentions in independent sources. The article text also does not offer anything that would justify keeping the article either. Additionally, the main contributor is likely to have a conflict of interest (same surname). kashmiri ^TALK 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
'Weak Delete'. I assume most of the references are in Urdu and proper search need to be done in Urdu. So, delete, unless there are Urdu speakers that may provide proper references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone with access to deleted content check to see whether this is a variant of the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abul Fazl Syed Mahmood Quadri less than a month ago. Online mirrors suggest that it is. Otherwise, I'm not comfortable deleting an article merely because the available sourcing isn't English-language. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks like the same bloke. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 19:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at least until a better informative and better sourced article can be made. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on consensus to delete Abul Fazl Syed Mahmoud Quadri.-- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. It looks like a new article on the same subject rather than a copy of the deleted one, but I see no reason for a different outcome, and recreation after only a month suggests that whoever is pushing this article here is unwilling to live with the consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be fair, I don't see any recreation efforts, the article dates back to 2010. Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 12:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than relatives writing about him, and alumni blubs, I don't see any coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JEM Management Corp.

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/JEM Management Corp.

Articles for deletion/JEM Management Corp. (2nd nomination)

JEM Management Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the rationale for an article is their connection to the finger incident. this has literally nothing to do with them in terms of their notability. an article on the incident wont fly, so why should they have an article. a section in another article may fly Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply still not solidly notable it seems, a local company owning some major restaurant locations. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete The notability is too remote. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Mind

Dynamic Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Falis WP:NBOOK, I see no indication of major coverage in secondary sources. Despite the claims of the article, google scholar shows it to have been cited 6 times.[7] Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am removing a bunch 'references' that don't mention the book. Every one I have checked so far is bogus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. The article violates
WP:Primary, at a minimum. I checked and it's not available at the library of congress. It's also not nearly as commonly cited as the article implies. And the author's credentials aren't relevant to the subject matter in the book, so I have no reason to believe the claim that it, "was considered an early pioneering effort that explained ... neuroplasticity before its concepts were widely recognized." Especially since the citation for that sentence is a primary source-- only the 2nd authors name is listed in the citation, but when I googled it, I found that the book's author was also the primary author of that impact study. Permstrump (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I disagree, but for a different reason because I do agree with Drodbeck & Permstrump. With all due respect, the article's writer has mischaracterized the book. I read it some 8 or 9 years ago and its not a science book, as the article seems to suggest (although it has some science in it). It's a "self-help" book like many on Wikipedia and its primary focus was the use of mnemonics in learning. There is certainly no discussion of any neuroplasticity pioneering efforts, or the like, else I believe that I would have caught it. I am not saying that the article's writer misstated the book intentionally, but am inclined to think they never read it. Permstrump was right in removing any unsupported material and references. If I can locate my old copy, I will give a go at it later in the week. I recommend placing the article in a proper self-help category and adding a "stub-tag" for improvement. If nothing changes, it can always be removed.Neverland1 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current form is an advertisement, and as far as I can tell no suitable sources are available to enable a proper article to be written. In spite of the tone of the article there is no evidence that this book has received significant attention. Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no mentions in other books or papers.. not sure how popular otherwise it is.. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.10.191 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails
WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by SPA accounts to promote Warren H. Chaney. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Changed my mind. Tried to repair the article and did find additional references but not enough to justify spending more time on the piece or for that matter, leaving it up. Neverland1 (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as non-notable puffery part of promotional initiative. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per
WP:SELFPROMOTION aspects of the article as well. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:WALLEDGARDEN, and WP:SERIOUSLY?. Followed the thread here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America: A Call to Greatness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above. I can find nothing to show that this book is notable enough for an entry. It does seem to exist and has been listed as a source in a few books, but nowhere near enough to really establish notability. It also doesn't help that this has issues with puffery and promotion, and that other articles on Chaney have had issues with outright deception. I've searched some college databases and JSTOR, but found nothing there as well. This could probably be snow closed at this point, I think. I'd do it myself except that I've opened an AfD for another Chaney related article
(｡◕‿◕｡) 23:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know if it even matters at this point, but I have doubts that this book even exists. Looking into the book for this AfD was the first thing that tipped me off to the elaborate online presence Chaney has created for himself since 2011, so I spent a lot of time going through all of the citations one-by-one of the ones that were left after OP for this AfD had already deleted a lot. I looked up every single citation. If the source existed (which it often did not), I searched the text and read exactly what was said about Chaney/Dynamic Mind. Of the small number of references that actually existed and mentioned Dynamic Mind, they were mainly self-published academic theses that echoed the same 1-2 sentences and listed the same page numbers in their reference lists. The only source this didn't apply to was an abstract on Research Gate, a social media website that's supposed to be for researchers and academics to share open source articles and data. Oh and by the way, that abstract had Chaney listed at the primary author, but only the second author had been listed in the reference list on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm pretty certain the only references to Dynamic Mind that didn't come from Chaney (or if it's not him personally, one of his kids), came from lazy students who were quoting each other without going back to the primary source. Permstrump (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Traveling Center

Iran Traveling Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article appears to have issues with both
WP:PROMOTION. Nothing indicates significance. JamesG5 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - If promotion can be removed, that is never a reason for deletion. However, even with promotion removed, there are no
WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, currently definitely not suggesting solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frank Shiner
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by
G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

DharmaKeerthi Sri Ranjan

DharmaKeerthi Sri Ranjan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The user who created it might have aconflict of Interest The Avengers 14:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(discuss) 14:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note It's now been moved to Traditional Media as a Model of Interpersonal Communication - DSR Model, and another copy with a small k is a redirect. In the course of this, the AfD template seems to have been removed. Peridon (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the AfD template. —teb728 t c 12:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Contents have been copied mostly from this.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have requested speedy deletion (G12) for the article at User:Sriranjanweb/Traditional Media as a Model of Interpersonal Communication - DSR Model. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). Closing this because the nominator has withdrawn the nomination, AND nobody else has argued in favor of deleting, as outlined at
WP:SK Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Jason Schappert

Jason Schappert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Vanity article. Fails
NAUTHOR John from Idegon (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete. Subject fails the~~
~~additional criteria for creative professionals. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)~~[reply
]

Speedy Keep. Schappert has received the
talk) 16:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Kudos to JaconaFrere for taking the time, doing the research, expanding the article and adding the reliable and verifiable sources necessary to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're passing compliments around, kudos to Alansohn for assuming good faith. I'd also like to thank John and Sam for all of their efforts; although I disagree with them on this article, they've both been very helpful to me in learning how to successfully edit Wikipedia, with the exception of articles that are associated with New Jersey. Thanks y'all!
talk) 16:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep thanks to
Jacona, well done! Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As per. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per
Jacona,. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John from Idegon (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per
(discuss) 14:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Naam (upcoming film)

Naam (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

"Merge" into
WP:FFILM criteria. Neither released in 2009 nor in 2013, better suggested for "Merge" D'SuperHero (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC) D'SuperHero (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Pastula

Dante Pastula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This child actor has made minor appearances in 1 feature film, 1 TV episode, 1 documentary and 1 short video. Only significant match on Google News was this. Fails
WP:NACTOR. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable child actor, no convincing need to keep this as there's no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
(discuss) 03:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete, blatantly fails GNG, a mere IMDb entry. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department Of

Department Of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable publication. Unfortunately, due to the subject's name, it is very difficult to find coverage for it, if they exist (which doesn't seem to be the case).
csdnew 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - If the article is deleted, it could be freaky enough to be added to
csd new 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP Narutolovehinata5 has a history of speedy deletions and I felt that said user was a little hasty to censor and put department of up for deletion delete without thorough explanation of how one could defend their page. After reading through the 5 pillars of wikipedia it seems that the only comedic publication at a university (with 10,000+ potential readers) started by a group of undergraduate women could be deemed notable, especially given the gender divide in the world of comedy. The definition of notable is subjective, however if you have a particular definition of what is 'notable' and what is 'not notable' I would be more than happy to hear it out (it is not specifically described in the wiki guidelines). If you were to be the sole judge of what is and is not notable, that is in and of itself another form of censorship-- something I'm sure the wikipedia community frowns upon. Chinese leaders have deemed the Tiananmen Square Protests as "not notable" enough to put in textbooks just as the state edu committee of the state of Texas also felt that Thomas Jefferson was not 'notable' enough to be in a US History textbook. I'm obviously not equating these instances of censorship with the potential deletion of this page, however I thought it was worth bringing up the example to convey a point that it would be in some respects unfair to delete this page solely because you deem it to be "un-notable". Though I realize that this comedic publication is not the NY Times or the Yale Record, I feel that it is odd to name a comedic magazine that caters to 10,000+ students and alumni as not notable. We have added a few more links to the page to provide some evidence of its existence. I understand that the title of the publication is very vague, but were hoping to hear your thoughts on what else we could do to fulfill the community guidelines. ---- thanks for reading! Gloriafrankensteinem (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Gloriafrankensteinem[reply]

@
WP:GNG, so whether or not the article should stay is nothing about 1) who wrote it, 2) whether they'd accept it in a Chinese textbook or 3) whether Jefferson should be in the textbooks of Texas. It is everything about whether your publication has had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A link from your university is not a reliable independent source. Do you have any other mentions in books or independent regional or national media? JMWt (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@JMWt: In response to whether the publication has "significant coverage in reliable sources" I'd have to say no, not yet. Further, in no manner did i refer to the notability of an article being defined as the three subcategories you mention. As someone who has always used wikipedia for digestion of random information, I was not aware of the strict acceptance and deletion guidelines when creating an article. I did not realize that something had to be of national significance to be included as you put in your response. Your clearly irritated and rude response to a new user in the wikipedia community is completely off-putting and a poor representation of what this open learning and teaching community should be.

nope, not irritated nor angry. I was just trying to separate what is actually an argument for keeping an article from what isn't. As I have recently said to another new editor here, it is unfortunate that your article has ended up here at AfD, which can be hard to understand. But the guidelines are pretty clear that you need independent secondary sources to show notability as per
WP:YFA, submit the article for review and ask for help if you are not sure about anything. I hope you keep editing, this process is not an attack upon your person, but a long-accepted mechanism for quality checking wikipedia articles. JMWt (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per author's comments that it does not meet the
WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not all publications are notable (see also
Wikipedia:Notability (newspapers). This one fails to show why it is encyclopedic, per cited policies. Could perhaps be merged to its university page or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable college publication that just started this year. Maybe
YO 😜 08:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small scale publication does not seem to be notable now. If it becomes so in the future then write an article.Borock (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orix Marketing

Orix Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources amid this marketing company's ocean of self marketing. Bringing it here rather than edit warring with anon over CSD tags. —teb728 t c 07:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy A7): A
WP:SALT should also be applied to avoid recurrence.) AllyD (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete - As I add this !vote, the article is tagged per
WP:G11. It appears the creator of the article logged out in an attempt to mask removal of the CSD tags, but I cannot verify that. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Terren Scott Peizer

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

WP:BLP1E. This article is more about the one event that Peizer was involved in that about the man himself. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

keep The current article is mostly about the Milken case but I've found another event with significant coverage that Peizer was involved in [9] [10]. I vote keep and have the page rewritten to include his Prometa involvement. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Duffbeerforme I've added a Prometa section which Peizer received a lot of criticism for. Will you withdrawal your nomination? CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep – references are credible enough to support the article. And how about the non-offline references? I think they are credible enough too. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems keepable enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stocktrek Images

Stocktrek Images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is (mostly dead) press releases, primary and some photo credits duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not currently enough coverage for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nextiva Inc.

Nextiva Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, passing mention, local, routine announcements and non reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see how [11], [12], or [13] is a passing mention, local, or routine announcement. They look like indepth coverage on a reliable source to me. The article has 10 references, is well written, and the subject's well documented. I vote keep. CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missed primary from the list, I have updates it now. As for those three sources: first is a blog where the company is talking about themselves, primary, not independent; second just mentions them in the intro then goes on to talk about the actual subject of the article which is not them, just a passing mention of them; third is about Gorny and just says about the company that Gorny "co-founder and chief executive of cloud-based communications provider Nextiva", that's it, just a passing mention. None give any depth of independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep – Some of the references are credible enough to support the article, most of which do not provide simple mentions of the said company. Moreover, I think the article can still be improved. Additional references such as this [14] can be added to improve it. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are credible hey? Why'd you put the other ones in? Getting paid by cite count? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least three independent, reliable sources:

The Arizona Republic - Scottsdale firm Nextiva grows with VoIP technology

Phoenix Business Journal - Nextiva named fastest-growing tech firm in Arizona

Inc. (magazine) - Want a 500 Percent Annual Growth Rate? Build a Customer Service Culture

The article needs copyediting but that's no cause for a deletion. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. Local coverage.

2. Local blog.

3. Industry mag with questionable independence. "(Disclosure: Nextiva has been a licensee of some of my written work.)" duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Was previously deleted at
Ignore all rules and delete spam to help improve Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unreliable sources and mere mnotice. Inc 500 is fastest growing, usually because they are small and insigificant. Local business journals will print an article (or more likely a press release) about any local company and are therefore unreliable for notability. Local newspapers are similarly unreliable with local firms. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is well referenced and the fact that it was previously deleted doesn't make it non-notable this time too. The sources mentioned have been used extensively in other articles. The chicagotribune.com has so many references pointing to its domain that the linksearch tool times out. A searchusing the Wikipedia search tools yields results north of 2,000. azcentral.com has also been extensively used to the tune of 5,000 plus times as a reliable source in the English Wikipedia alone and this sets a precedence for it. bizjournals.com is no small magazine either as a user mentioned earlier. It has more than 2,000 articles pointing to its domain for all the right reasons. Frost.com too follows suit and its has even been referenced from other language Wikipedias too as seen here. On this counts and unless there are other issues, I find that the subject has been covered pretty well by identifiable and reliable sources outside Wikipedia. The references I have mentioned as examples would have already been blacklisted as linkspam if they were not offering genuine and balanced coverage about subjects covered on Wikipedia. There is no one link that can be inserted on Wikipedia more than 3 times without being marked as linkspam for that matter. If it is the tone that is making the article promotional then it can always be toned down through wikification or by notifying the creator about it, otherwise I find that the article passes GNG and in fact not even a candidate for speedy deletion.
Wanna Chat? 02:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

In amongst that rubbish you've made some irrelevant and incorrect statements. You mostly focus on what sources have been used elsewhere. So what if
other articles use them, they are not the ones being discussed here. Putting aside the OTHERSTUFF aspect, let's look at an example, the last source you defend. Frost & Sullivan. Regardless of it use elsewhere, the particular source used here, as clearly seen from it's url (http://ww2.frost.com/news/press-releases/frost-sullivan-applauds-nextivas-impressive-customer-service-achieved-through-excellent-employee-and-client-management-strategie/) is a press release. Utterly useless for any consideration of appropriate coverage for WP:CORP. Another example, Chicago Tribune has only a passing mention, no depth of coverage, also no good for WP:CORP. You also state "There is no one link that can be inserted on Wikipedia more than 3 times without being marked as linkspam for that matter." That is a complete falsehood. And "The references I have mentioned as examples would have already been blacklisted as linkspam if they were not offering genuine and balanced coverage about subjects covered on Wikipedia." More bullshit. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Kindly exercise some decorum
Wanna Chat? 08:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I declined a speed delete request that was based on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva result, because the article was already here and wasn't snowing. Might as well finish up here rather than G4 it. No position on the merits. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Staff Finder

Virtual Staff Finder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

company that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is primary, listings and the founder talking about himself. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's currently nothing even for general notability but draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ducker

Chris Ducker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

bombardment of sources is primary, listings, him talking about himself and press releases. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as I hardly much see much weight here with both information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. CerealKillerYum (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger

Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

American lawyer, nephew of Arnold Schwarzenegger. I do not believe that the person is notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article; the only other claim of notability is that he represented various actors (which is sourced to what looks like press releases). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited from relatives or from clients. Fails
WP:NBIO. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - non-notable attorney. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
not notable because of whom he or she represents nor to whom he or she is related, but for the cases and causes argued. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTINHERITED - Being the nephew of someone doesn't grant you a free pass to an article. –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra Industries Directory

Maharashtra Industries Directory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I dream of horses (My edits) @ 05:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kepler de Souza Oliveira

Kepler de Souza Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Kepler de Souza Oliveira is not a notable person and I cannot find any reliable sources pertaining to him. The only semi-notable source was the Brazilian Academy of Sciences but even that doesn't explain much about his importance. FiendYT (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of national scientific academies are usually considered notable per
Talk) 05:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I am the author of the article, and what I can say is that he has made many discoveries in astronomy, and as you can see on Google Scholar there are many citations to his papers. Even on Wikipedia itself he is cited many times; just an example: it was he and his research partners who discovered that BPM 37093 is a variable star (this is mentioned in Wikipedia's article!). I have some "paper sources" (not on-line), like magazines, such as Ciência Hoje (in Portuguese), that talk about his discoveries. If I'm not wrong he was president of the Brazilian Society of Astronomy for some years too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendPanda (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Talk) 07:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Membership in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences should pass
WP:PROF#C3, but he also has a case for #C6 as president of the Brazilian Astronomical Society. Google scholar finds some citations under "Kepler de Souza" although not well-cited enough to meet a third WP:PROF criterion. Regardless, even one should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EricEnfermero above
talk) 14:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

keep. Since when is an Academy of Science a "semi notable" source? Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Purvis Artist

Brooke Purvis Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Moved from AfC into article space by creator, the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. Fails
WP:CREATIVE and the crime section is a likely BLP violation. Cult of Green (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete WP:BLP1E CerealKillerYum (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~nuke this mess~~ userify and delete article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC), updated 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete
WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

If delete, then also delete Draft:Brooke Purvis Artist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment don't salt. Remove anything unsourced or "criminal", but after talking with the very new editor of this article, they did seem to write it in good faith. Also, Purvis has appeared in Huff Post, Artnet news and Vice. It has been for one event, so userfying would make sense if the consensus is delete... give the new editor a chance to work on the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Let's give the new editor a chance here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft (userfy) I removed the criminal charge content and I think that the page should be userfied because this person is very notable for one event, but they are still in school and have yet to create their body of work. I'm pinging the creator, Workforce2014, so they can see the discussion here. BTW, "Nuke this mess" is very inappropriate, Loriendrew for an AfD discussion. Everyone has room for improvement and this is a new editor trying to learn the ropes. Let's help them understand the process, rather than trashing anyone's work. The article is fine once the criminal charges were removed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is an existing draft at AfC that the editor can continue to work on. Cult of Green (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am sorry for not being
civil, just hard with a person who moves an article despite a large number of AfC rejections, followed by how many AfD notice removals.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

workforce2014 Hi everyone, I'm really sorry for the noob mistakes here, editing on Wikipedia seems as if it's like coding of which I have no idea how to do. I appreciate your input. Even finding this page to discuss has been difficult. I've done my best to find further references about Brooke Purvis and I thought of him to be a notable person by the standards given in the guide lines, including the street art history. I have looked through other artists of similar ilk and there are many on wikipedia with only 1 or 2 references about their own work which I find confusing. Is there a difference between biographical pages and notable persons pages?

Delete. The coverage is all for him burning his money, which is a
WP:BIO1E thing. No coverage of any depth apparent otherwise. Can be recreated if he gets coverage for something else (perhaps burning something else?). Advise against userfication at this time because Workforce2014 doesn't strike me as experienced enough yet to do anything useful with a draft. Sandstein 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to keep; this
WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. the "Bill Clinton, not William" principle). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Nigel Ward

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Fails
WP:BIO. He got a short article in The Telegraph[15] and a bit in The Guardian[16] but that's about it except for passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep much of the coverage is hard to find, but it exists. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is it possible he qualifies as a soldier? Fewer than 100 have received the
YO 😜 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Ward does not qualify by his rank or decorations. However, he did become a well-known figure during and after the Falklands War and has plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ward is an important figure in the Falklands War, which itself is an important part of British military history. His role as a commander and leader was critical to the British success and he is essentially the only fighter pilot from that war who is well known. Expatscot —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable figure both during and after the war, per the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book and participation in events bring him over the line. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes gng, the DSC plus his role in the Falklands are plenty.
talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion appears on its face persuasive, but if I close this as "no consensus" we'll have one more BLP article that cites zero reliable sources, because apparently nobody could be bothered to actually edit the article to reflect these sources during the month this has been on AfD. So: Deleted for now, can be recreated if anybody bothers to write a half-way decent, sourced article. Sandstein 18:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Sethna

Maia Sethna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:ACTOR Kavdiamanju (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 02:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at this time and certainly unacceptable current version. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SwisterTwister. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include in-depth here, a positive review here, she was on a dubious Forbes list of top 100 Indian celebrities here, coverage here, plus she's been acting as a kid and got a mention in the Irish Times, she meets the
general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Max Levine Ensemble

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Max Levine Ensemble

Articles for deletion/The Max Levine Ensemble (2nd nomination)

The Max Levine Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet
NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Washington D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Passes
WP:GNG. Sources include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5] These were found using the Google news link atop this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ "The Max Levine Ensemble". Punknews.org.

^ "Review: The Max Levine Ensemble, 'Backlash, Baby'". NPR. 11 November 2015.

^ "Songs We Love: The Max Levine Ensemble, 'My Valerian'". NPR. 4 November 2015.

^ "Chords With Friends: For the past 15 years, The Max Levine Ensemble has been shaping D.C.'s DIY punk scene". Washington City Paper.

^ "The Max Levine Ensemble's Backlash, Baby, Reviewed: 15 years on, The Max Levine Ensemble's music is still worth celebrating". Washington City Paper.

Keep. Satisfies both guidelines via the coverage received. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Thanks NA. John from Idegon (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ventura Park Public School

Ventura Park Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

This public school may not meet the notability guidelines for several reasons. I cannot find any secondary sources that qualify as sources for information. The only sources I can find are reviews of the school. There are also no references in this article, and I cannot find any references to add that are notable enough. FiendYT (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There's no indication this school was ever a high school, and no indication of anything sufficiently special about it to override the usual practice. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect per Arxiloxos. John from Idegon (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Jenet

Dylan Jenet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Created by promotional account (same user name as artist's management). No evidence of notability, or meeting
WP:MUSICBIO. Previous CSD removed by author. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No evidence of notability. Created by a
WP:COI account, since blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Promotion for the company.
Talk to me 18:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different Instruments for Different Equations

Different Instruments for Different Equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this is a distinct topic, and it seems to belong elsewhere, not WP. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikibooks, maybe. Note that the creator of this article created about two dozen very similar articles, at the rate of about one article per minute. See [17]. Choor monster (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have started this thread at ANI on the two dozen articles as a whole, since I don't know where to turn for mass deletion discussion. Choor monster (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to that thread but will reply here as well. I'm an academic and have gone through some of the texts cited in this article, so I'm quite familiar with these topics. While the present article is unfortunately named and perhaps could be merged into Simultaneous equations model, the vast majority of these articles are legitimate statistical topics, not mere textbook section titles. I strongly recommend against mass-deleting articles by what appears to be a relatively new user who's expending a lot of effort to filling a huge gap in modern statistical topics on Wikipedia. That he's a biochemist and writing articles based on multiple econometrics texts should tell you how widespread and notable these methods are. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: I've gone through his articles in more detail and some need to be reorganized or merged and at least a few are clear keeps. Someone, preferably someone from the statistics project, needs to approach this user and provide him with a few guidelines and to coordinate further contributions. I strongly think we need to stop harassing rare and knowledgeable contributors with deletion requests for their amateurish attempts to contribute to this site without any attempt to communicate with the user and/or to allow him to address the issues that may present. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its present form, this is not a reasonable article. Seems no way to use the material except by starting over from scratch. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Might be plausible as a section in an article. Not an article as such. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of this per
YO 😜 10:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename or merge a few articles, keep the rest, see above. 50.153.133.158 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There isn't much I can say that already hasn't been said above. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venomiss

Venomiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as the article is simply not convincingly better enough and my searches also found nothing better. Notifying tagger DESiegel in case he has any comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything that shows how this artist meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at
WP:NMUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 15:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Month of Photography Asia

Month of Photography Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it seems it may not even actually exist anymore (coverage about it seems to end in about 2012) and my searches found nothing better than this, this and then at Singapore news websites Business Times, The New Paper, The Straits Times, Today and InSing (although I found it was simply a local travel guide) as well as AsiaOne where I found the same link listed here. This simply hasn't changed much since starting in September 2010 and there's especially none happening if it's now non-existent and never even got lasting coverage. It also seems obvious this was mostly contributed by the festival people so it almost looks more like a personal webpage rather than a formal encyclopedia article (any more different and promotional and I would've simply speedied). Notifying author Raphaël Millet and past user Lopifalko. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll come back to you on this when I get an opportunity. -Lopifalko (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether it exists now or not seems irrelevant, the point is whether notability is demonstrated. I added a ref from Asian Correspondent, and removed some non-notable details. It reads as a fairly matter-of-fact declaration of the facts of the festival. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering this has been relisted and I'm not sure how this is going to end either way, I'm notifying photography users Joe Decker, Ukexpat, Dennis Bratland and Donnie Park who may have some insight with this and also DGG who asks to be notified where he can help AfDs with low traffic. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hoary likewise. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Insufficient basis for notability. In any case the article is worded promotionally, as usually the case for an article for an exhibition that tries to list everyone exhibited. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have cleaned it up more, and addressed DGG's concern over listing everyone exhibited by removing that list, leaving only the solo exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty horrible when first nominated; a lot better now, thanks to good work (flab removal, sourcing) by Lopifalko. Presumably created and maintained for promotional purposes, but then this is true of a huge number of articles hereabouts, and the problem is not of how promotional it was but of how promotional it's doomed to be. It's less than stellar now and indeed may deteriorate, but then this is true of well over half of the articles here. Though still not great, sourcing isn't bad and all in all it deserves to live on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently described by independent sources. Now a sufficiently objective description of the event. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep now that it's been fixed. I'd suggest going a little further are removing those participants who are not notable enough to have articles of their own, as is usually our practice in such lists. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code

Quran code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability that doesn't loop back to the author. Other claims all violate
WP:SYNTH. I can see a page for numerical analysis of the Quran in general, but this is too specific. Richfife (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added a more reliable source to establish notability, although it is a bit unfortunate that we have to resort to primary sources for a more detailed discussion of the subject. The article could use a good clean-up, or else a redirect to
Submitters. - HyperGaruda (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because this is in relation to a specific mathematical code which is allegedly all encompassing and based on the number 19. There are numerous non-original sources discussing the topic. The sources for these have been supplied in the talk section of this. Navidfa (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kojo Yankson

Kojo Yankson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails
t@lk to M£ 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
t@lk to M£ 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 18:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ethan Leib

Ethan Leib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent sources; no indication of notability. —Swpb^talk 14:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears to be widely published in his field. Due to the legitimacy of the field (law academia), this page appears to meet the criteria for significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.191.175.228 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of his books is reviewed here in the New Republic[18]; there are substantial citations of his books and papers[19]. He appears to be widely published in the top-level mainstream press (e.g. LA Times, WaPo, American Scholar) as well as from top academic publishers (Oxford.)--
talk) 21:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

probable keep He does have a public profile. See here:[20] and here:[21] I'll be back later to take a closer look.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems notable and acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Knapp

Horace Knapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

No indication of notability. Principal source appears to be a family memoir. Nthep (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but probably not notable. I can't find anything which is unambiguously about this Horace Knapp. Can't see a good reason to keep, sorry. JMWt (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations from local/regional newspaper articles as well as a local history book. The family memoir was used only to fill out the description (as the oral and written traditions will be lost if not recorded). I've removed some paragraphs that were unnecessary to the core subject of how the local community was built. It is important to local communities to record their heritage before it is lost forever. I would submit that besides the published citations I have added, the oral and written traditions (from primary sources) were extremely important to local pioneer families. This is how tradition and history in small communities was recorded and passed down. You may disregard the "family memoir" portion of the article, and I believe it still stands on the published citations alone. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donutgirl83 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As I said above, it is interesting - but can you tell me what is so important about this Horace Knapp rather than anyone else around at the time? What did he do that is so interesting and worth remembering hundreds of years later? JMWt (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research; if he founded a community, he may be notable within the state but not the geographic US. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 14:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a person of no apparent public or other significance, a well-liked citizen but I'm at a loss as to why an encyclopedia or even a local history text would want to cover him. The references indicate little about the reliability or depth of their coverage. Sandstein 18:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: He seems to have found the community of Purdy, but the sources are a bit of a problem. :/ Redirect Seeing Hydronium Hydroxide's comment about Purdy's population, I rather have a brief mention about him being the founder of the community in the village's article instead. Vincent60030 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and
WP:BIO. I've edited Purdy, Washington to fold in relevant info (except for the section about the road to Gig Harbour, which I've inserted but commented out given the lack of reliable source and tone) and add a couple of sources, though it's still not in good shape. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 10:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul Dobbs

Paul Dobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of Notability, fails
List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents since the day of death with three hard-copy references. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep meets talk) 21:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Isle of Man TT is essentially a series of races under one umbrella festival. Certainly someone that competed in the
WP:GNG anyways, but I will defer to those with greater knowledge of TT racing to make the actual decision. RonSigPi (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As there are no sources presently available to Wikipedia, from the one-year-posthumous article about the family, it seems Paul Dobbs was an enthusiastic amateur, who had an extensive entry history in Isle of Man events. The 1960s phrase referring to such amateurs and the Isle of Man was 'holiday racer'. There are still some around with a couple of bikes and a tent for a couple of weeks, but likely the phrase has fallen out of use. The IoM races are totally different to those exampled in WP:NMOTORSPORT/3, not part of a series, not with European/World level teams participating, and certainly not with any National significance. Without pre-death sources to prove notability, only race tables and news reports can be cited.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chura

Peter Chura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minimally sourced
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like a tweet and his surprisingly not-yet-dead profile on the website of the television station he formerly worked for. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he (a) wins his seat, or (b) manages to accrue greater notability, for more than just existing, as a journalist. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: List of Global Television Network personalities gives some indication of extent of existing coverage of similar subjects, which suggests that he may pass WP:JOURNALIST#1. The linked sources above, provided by the proposer seem to back this up. However, this is not my area of expertise. If there are clearer guidelines on TV Journo notability, then they probably need to be referred to here. The proposer highlights a few shortcomings within the article, but these can easily be addressed by more work on the article rather than deletion. Graemp (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for inclusion of television journalists is really quite simple: they are the subject of substantial coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer. There doesn't need to be any special policy beyond that fact — but no such coverage has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

A click on the Find sources link above for "Peter Chura" leads the reader to "substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or his own employer." The coverage of the subject has in fact increased significantly over the past month. This article has been in existence since 2006 and has had contributions from a number of editors. There might have been a case at some point over those past 10 years to move to have the article deleted, due to lack of substantial coverage. I think that point has now clearly passed. Graemp (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards are much stricter now than they were in 2006 — a lot of things were created in 2006 that have since had to be deleted for failing to fulfill the standards that apply today. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per a number of articles in reliable sources entirely about the subject:
"Former TV anchor Peter Chura to run for Manitoba Liberals". CBC News. 27 October 2015.

Larkins, David (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Sun.

Keele, Jeff (27 October 2015). "Ex-anchor Peter Chura running for Manitoba Liberals". CTV News.

"Former news anchor Peter Chura running for Liberals in Seine River". Winnipeg Free Press. 27 October 2015.

Aumell, Christian (27 October 2015). "Peter Chura Running For Liberals In Seine River". CJOB.

The fact that he got so much coverage for his decision to run suggests he is notable. Also, he has been an important public figure in his large city for ~10 years as a news anchor. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't think that he is sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist. Criterion 1 of
WP:JOURNALIST, as cited by Graemp, is: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He certainly doesn't meet the latter part of that and I would struggle to call him an "important figure" in his capacity as a regional news anchor (of a newscast which I suspect has a much smaller audience than the regional newscasts of CBC or CTV). With respect to the List of Global Television Network personalities
that Graemp also mentioned, the only two non-national hosts/anchors listed other than Chura are the anchors of Global BC (in Vancouver) and Global Montreal, both in markets much bigger than Winnipeg.

Regarding his recent entry into politics, provincial candidates are not normally presumed to be notable. The only coverage appears to be the mere announcement of his candidacy and all of the sources cited (in the article and this AfD) are from the same day. While the announcement got a little more coverage than the average provincial candidacy on account of him presumably being a known name in Winnipeg, it is still just coverage of the one announcement. If that's essentially all the coverage, that's coming close to
Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election
.

Of course, as Bearcat noted, this may be an appropriate subject for an article in the future if the subject were to become notable (by, e.g, winning the election, becoming a uniquely notable candidate for some reason, moving up in his field as a journalist, receiving a significant award or distinction for his journalism, etc.). Graham (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing if someone is "an important figure" or not can be tricky and Graham tackles this difficult area; Graham talks about audience size, speculating that Global TV audiences may be "much smaller" than CBC or CTV, without actually providing any stats. Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience. This Afd discussion has also overlooked another consideration and that is Chura has not just had a Manitoba profile; the article reveals he has also had a profile in Edmonton, Alberta, Timmins, Ontario and Ottawa, Ontario and finally has worked for CBC on a national daily programme from Toronto. So that is three provinces and a nationwide show. Graham's initial view about "sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist." is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism. I think it would be fairer to say that Chura's candidacy announcement got substantially more coverage than the average candidacy, provincial, federal or otherwise. Graemp (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only way a candidacy for office can ever contribute to a person's notability is if it (inter-)nationalizes into something on the order of the media firestorm that ate
WP:ROUTINE, because it isn't substantively different from what all candidates for office always get in the runup to all elections. So no, the candidacy coverage doesn't make him more notable on that basis than any other unelected candidate would be — until such time as he wins the election and thereby holds a notable office, the only way to make him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article now is to source the article to coverage of him in the context of being a journalist (and no, mentions of his past career as a journalist in articles which are about the candidacy don't satisfy that.) Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but I don't think it's right for you to say that "Graham's initial view about 'sufficiently notable on the basis of his work as a journalist.' is no longer a relevant consideration by itself due to his further notability beyond journalism." when I was clearly addressing the subject's notability as a journalist and as a politician in separate paragraphs.

"Perhaps audience size might be relevant if we were comparing a national TV company with a small local or alternative media outlet, but we are not. Graham also talks about differences in markets between Winnipeg and Montreal/Vancouver. I'm not sure how relevant that distinction is or should be. I think what is more relevant is the actual status; Winnipeg, like Montreal and Vancouver, is a provincial capital and like the other two, seeks to serve a province wide audience." Where is it that you are suggesting the line is there? If a former news anchor on CKND-DT is notable, then could/should we say the same of an anchor on CBCT-DT in Charlottetown, PEI (another provincial capital), assuming the anchor were not otherwise notable? Or what about CKX-TV in Brandon, Manitoba?

In terms of audience numbers, these are a few years out of date, but it gives us an idea: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/entertainment/TV/ctv-still-dominates-local-tv-news-ratings-113339259.html. That being said, ratings definitely aren't the crux of the issue here.

Regarding your comparison to Global BC and Global Montreal, Global Winnipeg serves 91% of Manitoba's population of 1.2 million. Global BC, for example, serves 97% of BC's population of 4.4 million. I would say it's a significant difference when Global Winnipeg has a quarter of the potential reach of Global BC. And if you look at the numbers for Global Montreal, they're similar.

But really, in short – and I think this is key here – the question that has to be asked with respect to Chura's work as a journalist is "
has [he] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
"? I think the answer clear.

Looking separately at his political work, the reality is that at this point, it's almost non-existent. While it seems most of the major media outlets in Southern Manitoba ran a short piece on the announcement of his candidacy, that one day of non-extensive coverage is the extent of his political career thus far. I don't know in what other field we would consider one day of non-extensive coverage of a
WP:SINGLEEVENT
in the regional media as sufficient to deem the individual involved in the event to be notable.

I imagine that one could attempt to make the argument that while he is not sufficiently notable solely as a journalist or as a politician, the combination of his notability in both of those fields might be enough. I don't buy that, however, as there's effectively no significant coverage of his journalism in reliable sources and his notability in politics doesn't extend beyond one day of non-extensive news coverage in the regional press.

Finally, I think it is worth restating that this someone who, if elected, will be almost unquestionably notable. If he receives extensive (preferably national) coverage for his campaign, he will likely be notable as well. But as things stand right now, he is a regional news anchor about whom there is no significant coverage and a provincial third party candidate who independent sources haven't covered except to say that he is running. Graham (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RS requires sourcing that are independent of the subject or his own employer. I don't think that the bracketed qualification that Bearcat requests should override Wikipedia:RS. Nevertheless I appreciate that Bearcat, the proposer of deletion is now recognising sufficient notability for the article to remain, so I would be happy to collaborate with Bearcat to improve it. Given that Bearcat has a history of editing this article in 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010, I am happy to let Bearcat take first crack. Graemp (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nice try, but nothing I said anywhere in this discussion suggests that I think there is "sufficient notability for the article to remain". For the article to remain, reliable sources would have to be covering him in the context of his work as a journalist, and not in the context of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet. But the sourcing that's been shown here has not satisfied that condition at all — and I've said nothing that contradicts any part of that statement anywhere in this discussion. And Wikipedia's inclusion and minimum sourcing standards have changed considerably since 2006 — a lot of things that were acceptable on here a decade ago are nowhere near acceptable under the standards that an article has to meet now. So the fact that I might have edited the article in the past does not prove that I'm being inconsistent — it just proves that Wikipedia's rules about what's enough notability/sourcing and what isn't have changed. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate issues here; Assessing an individuals notability and assessing the way the article presents this through sourcing. In assessing notability we rely upon
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Bearcat proposed deletion essentially because identifying reliable sources had not occurred. I think it is fairly clear that the information in the article can be sourced in accordance with Wikipedia:RS. (The sources at the start of this AfD discussion are helpful in this respect) On the subject of notability, I think it is worth stressing that the criteria for journalists has essentially not changed since before 2008. The fact that Bearcat has edited the article three times since then should not lead anyone to conclude that Bearcat is being inconsistent since Bearcat has essentially not been questioning the notability of the subject. In my view, the way forward is to provide reliable sourcing for the article, not to deleted it. Graemp (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The sourcing that has been offered so far, right across the board without a single exception, is
WP:GNG
for being a candidate. It is not coverage of him in the context of his journalism, and thus does not demonstrate that he is "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" as a journalist.

And our inclusion criteria have changed considerably since 2006; back then, people often created articles on journalists whose only source was their staff profile on the website of the television station that they worked for (which was exactly the case here as well, until you started trying to stack it with
notability
in and of itself.

And for the record, I've even supported the deletion of articles where I was actually the original creator under the old 2006-vintage rules (see, frex,
WP:RS coverage hadn't kept up with that evolution — so the fact that I may have edited an article for purely maintenance issues once or twice before does not prove that I'm being hypocritical or inconsistent by looking at it today, in mind of the notability and sourcing standards that govern Wikipedia's content today, and coming to the conclusion that it's just not there. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two journalistic awards he received have now been sourced. Sourcing of his journalistic career now covers a span of eight years. Graemp (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. No consensus to delete, but consensus to not keep (in this state), so. Sandstein 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leithrow

Michael Leithrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:ANYBIO as winner of a major award. More information being added, and additional info from the National Archive is in the pipeline. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Delete as I simply found no better coverage and basically the award is the only lifeline for this article. Notifying users DGG, MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard for some better insight as they request to be notified at low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The award is given to multiple people a year, and in repeated discussions here has been held not sufficient for notability . But possibly additional information will be forthcoming. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~How come when I click on isfutile:P the one who nominated this AfD, I get redirected to Tonyinman?~~ My mistake confusing something else I read, oops! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (with the history preserved under the redirect and without prejudice to anyone undoing the redirect if more information establishing notability has been added). There is not enough coverage of the subject to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Rich Farmbrough wrote, "More information being added, and additional info from the National Archive is in the pipeline." A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow Rich Farmbrough to undo the redirect once more information is available and can be added. Preserving the history under the redirect will also allow Rich Farmbrough or any other interested editors to merge material to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. I note that the AfD nominator also supports a redirect.
Cunard (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Cunard. This will give Rich Farmbrough more time. Once an article hits AfD, it just becomes a huge ticking bomb! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 07:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunsby

Brian Dunsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is not inherently notable and does not pass GNG. Notability is reliant on one 'award'. Article would be best redirected to the page for that award: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion isfutile:P (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only recognized for one event that he organized, which won an award, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He didn't win the most important enterprise award in the country for organising the Harrogate Christmas market - important thought that is! It was for forty years of work building enterprise in the region. Meets
WP:GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply
]

Note adding material from the National Archives. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Done R.F. 2015-12-2Z17:17

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft and userfy at best as the current sourcing is simply not convincing enough and although I found more at Books and News for starters, it would at best be better for him to be mentioned at the Yorkshire Business Market's article, not independently notable for a separate article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the additional sources you found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note additional documents received under FOI, so may well be yet more RS to add. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It has been significantly improved. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs look ok now. I considered voting delete when this was first put up for afd, but decided to sit on the fence. As mentioned the article has been much improved. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to
non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Kim Yong-Sun (singer)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Not notable independently, article is mostly about her work with Mamamoo which is redundant considering it is all mentioned within Mamamoo's article. Asdklf; (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mamamoo as she's seemingly best known for that, with no obvious solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no independent notability.Peachywink (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Platform

Social Democratic Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable political alliance. Recently created, has no parliamentary representatives and is almost anonymous; yesterday their representants appeared for first time in a TV talk-show. XXN, 23:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps too new for a solid article yet unless convincingly better coverage can be found. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Chahun Main Ya Naa

Chahun Main Ya Naa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

The song fails
WP:RS but NSONGS says "... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created..."; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Tu Hi Hai Aashiqui

Tu Hi Hai Aashiqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Fails
WP:NSONG for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Also fail NSONGS as "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The signed letter of Muhammad al-Mahdi (Tawqee)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

There appear to be only 5 or 6 mentions of this in the entire Shi'ite literature. And those too are only passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. I am nominating this with the premise that we put a brief mention of this (no more than 3/4 lines) somewhere in the Muhammad-Al-Mahdi article and delete this POV and OR essay. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One article consist several part and all these parts are for clearing the subject. Therefore, we can not just write about subject and this is necessary write some introduction. In this article, history section is introduction and another parts are main text. Tawqee is signature of Caliph or rulers on the letter and the article is about Muhammad al-Mahdi's Tawqee. In references of the article, the letters were introduced that Muhammad al-Mahdi signed (for example this one and this). Please pay attention that according to
WP:N, popularity is not notability. You can ask your question about Muhammad al-Mahdi and related topics to him from Sa.vakilian. Saff V. (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

— Note to closing admin:
XfD. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Both of your sources give one line mentions to this so called Highly important topic. I mean that literally, one line and they are done. It kinda made me laugh, that someone mentions something in one line and we create an article on wikipedia about that thing. Sounds absurd to you too when put this way right? Be kind enough to provide RS that discuss this in depth. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you better search you can find better and reliable source. These are reliable sources:
ISLAM IN IRAN vii. THE CONCEPT OF MAHDI IN TWELVER SHIʿISM.

ISLAM IN IRAN ix. THE DEPUTIES OF MAHDI

ḠAYBA

Introduction of Muhammad al-Mahdi's Tawqee

An Arabic book about Tawqee Saff V. (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional sources from Saff.V - admins should note nominator appears to be targeting articles created by Saff.V that passed AfC
YO 😜 10:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Wikimandia: just out of curiosity, how do you know that this article passed AfC? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

And out of even more curiosity why are you going around commenting on the editor instead of content? Is the creator of this article "sacred" to you somehow or related to you that when someone nominates her/his articles for deletion you want admins to "take notice"? Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far East Travel

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Far East Travel

Articles for deletion/Far East Travel (2nd nomination)

Far East Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus company, I can't find anything at all on this company, I managed to find [22] on Gemini Travel but other than that there's nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was deleted at AfD (from, iirc, a very similar state but with lists of routes in it) in March 2011 (see
WP:CORP beyond this article - trivial, yes (on timetables and the like). Unless there's any specific in the specialist literature or the company has any historic claim to fame, I'd suggest it's a clear delete, especially with the AfD history -and s a good example of why recreated AfD articles need to be watched, even when recreated as redirects. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a recreation of a deleted article. Fails
WP:CORPCharles (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG & corporate notability. Shearonink (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete under CSD G4, given the previous discussion at WP:GNG. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

UkPaolo - I could be wrong but I think G4's for articles that have just been recreated, This article's been here since 2012 so I don't believe it applies unfortunately, –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point, given the amount of time the re-created article has been around, that it is probably-wise to repeat the discussion. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - short-lived local coach/bus company. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jim Bianco. joe decker ^talk 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Within Reason

Well Within Reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

I can't find evidence that this album is independently notable to pass
WP:NALBUMS. Suggest a redirect and merger of content to Jim Bianco. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - The right thing to do as I cannot find reliable sources that cover it in depth, nor can I find it charting. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
(discuss) 03:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 16:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Services

Coach Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus company, Only cites in the article all point to the companies website and there's nothing on Google News/Books nor Highbeam that establishes notability, Seems TOOSOON atm, Also fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Charlesdrakew, Onel5969 and SwisterTwister who edit bus related articles. –Davey2010^Talk 00:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can actually be better improved as my searches found nothing better and I'll wait and see if others find anything as they would've likely gotten something if they are actually notable considering it started in 1948. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, unless an interested editor can find sourcing. Due to the commonality of the name, I can find zero about this particular company, although I looked through hundreds of hits on News. If better sourcing is found, please ping me and I'll take another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm struggling to find evidence of notability here, admittedly I only did a quick search to confirm what others were saying above. Jeni ^(talk) 13:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of sufficient notability _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those arguing to keep presented sources, but failed to convince the delete camp that the sources met our requirements. That, plus weight of numbers, makes this a clear delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Gonstead

Clarence Gonstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Subject is claimed to have invented a certain fringe "medical" technique. Many references are from an organization spawned from his followers. He has a few mentions in some chiropractic journals.
talk) 15:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep not a compelling nomination, does not mention easily found additional information, Gonstead Technique and The Gonstead System. No indication that this was taken to the talk page, the article is has 1120 reads in the past 30 days[23] and a consistent amount over the past 90 days. Somewhere between 50 and 100 incoming links in the article space. (I have no connection with this article or the subject). -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's possible that the Gonstead Tecnique might be a notable procedure within the somewhat fringe world of Chiropractic practice, however even including that
WP:BLP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs
) 2015-11-28T07:02:54‎

Delete per Salimfadhley. Notably, even the sources on the technique appear to be deliberately obfuscatory as to what the technique IS, stating vague generalities mixed with marketing speak and jargon, which is a bad sign. In any case, even if the technique passes, only the weakest sources give any details about him, and they're the ones most obviously problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of actual importance. There's no shortage of minor chiropractic sects, it's part of their business model, trying to set themselves apart from the others. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source provided show he clearly passes GNG. Everyone knows chiropractics is quackery, its does not mean we do not cover such people. In fact we should do so for that reason. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I did a search on Google Scholar which shows a tremendous amount of sources here. The person's technique has been involved in a number of clinical trials. Here is a study [24]. Here is a source which covers him extensively [25], and another source suggest lack of insurance with his technique [26]. Also a third party book [27]. This is clearly not RUNOFTHEMILL. @Delta13C: in light of these sources I ask you to reconsider. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a google search really doesn't show much. Take those results. Are they reliable sources? Dubious. Do they actually discuss Gonstead in any depth? No. These are almost entirely discussions of the technique he created, with little-to-no biographical detail, on a spotcheck.
WP:ONEEVENT applies. The technique might be validly discussed in an article along the lines of List of chiropractic movements
, but it doesn't appear to have sources sufficient to write a balanced, stand-alone article on itself, let alone on its creator.

If you think there's great sources, link to the sources, not a google search that shows every trivial mention of him, with an unstated assertion that a lot of trivial mentions add up to a useful source.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are, they are secondary reliable sources. I would recommend checking WP:RS, and letting me know what is unreliable about them. Are you aware they are from
WP:AUTHOR
states that an author is notable based on their work. Specifically:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Google Scholar#Limitations and criticism: 'Lack of screening for quality — Google Scholar strives to include as many journals as possible, including predatory journals, which "have polluted the global scientific record with pseudo-science, a record that Google Scholar dutifully and perhaps blindly includes in its central index."' - just appearing in Google Scholar isn't a sign it's a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look through the studies? The sources I provided were ones that were not runofthemill. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? Let's review the ones you linked:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=dennis_richards - Only trivial mentions, e.g. "These included chiropractic technique system developers such as Drs. Hugh B Logan, Clarence Gonstead, Clay Thompson, I. N. Toftness, George Goodheart, Warren Lee and Arlan Fuhr." He's only mentioned twice more, both in passing.

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=57108 Obituary by his own clinic. Not an independent source.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/alternative-medicine-but-to-insurers-no-alternative/article_b21a17f9-29d1-5f4a-a902-0fa870d41715.html Only mention in the article: "the Gonstead Clinic, founded in 1939 by chiropractic pioneer Dr. Clarence Gonstead."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5OfboQEACAAJ&dq=%22Clarence+Gonstead%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Publisher: "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" - that's a self-publishing site. Not reliable.

Conclusion: None of these are independent, reliable non-trivial coverage. Most are only trivial mentions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You understand that they are independent as long as he nor his company publishes them. So source with in the chiropractic industry unrelated [to him are independent and reliable for notability. Here: [28], [29], [30], this is fine actually though minor mention. I included two clinical studies for you. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that the major problem is
WP:ONEEVENT - if he's only notable for the Gonstead technique, then there's not going to be enough for an article on him. Articles about the technique are not good evidence for him having his own article; at best, they might justify an article on the technique (but that's an argument for elsewhere). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
One event doesn't apply here, we use WP:AUTHOR. Creating a field is not an event but a body of work. We maybe be able to merge to the body of work in the future, but probably not best discussed at AfD. If you agree with me now I hope you can change your vote to a weak keep :) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. I think you're really inflating the notability of chiropractic methods to make them count under that criterion; in the end, he's only of note to chiropractors, which kind of causes
WP:FRINGE issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida State–Georgia Tech football rivalry

Florida State–Georgia Tech football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is not a rivalry, it is merely a series of games between two teams who have played in the same conference for a little more than two decades. Fails
WP:GNG and other applicable criteria. THEowner of a l l 23:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the first two references ([31], [32]) appear to discuss this rivalry. The second is promising, suggesting the rivalry has existed for a while (The late 1990's was an especially heated time for the rivalry but more on that later.), and going into great detail about its history, but there needs to be more coverage per
WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 20:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If this is a notable rivalry, it would have been so only when they were playing annually (i.e. 1992–2003). So the absence of internet references describing the rivalry doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a notable rivalry at its peak (and notability is not temporary), and the answer probably lies in contemporary print references. Aspirex (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to keep it, but I just don't see the sources at this time. If they are found and presented, I will reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football "rivalry" -- to characterize this series as a traditional CFB rivalry is a huge misnomer. In the early years of the series, after FSU became a co-ed university and started its football program in the late 1940s, Georgia Tech scheduled FSU as a minor opponent to fill its non-SEC (and later, independent) schedule every two or three years. FSU was the proverbial "homecoming opponent," and Georgia Tech dominated the first 8 games with 7 wins and a tie. Since FSU joined the ACC in 1992, FSU has dominated the series 14–3. Circumstances had changed in the intervening years; Tech had waned as a national program, and was only an occasional conference contender, whereas FSU had evolved into a perennial national power and became the immediately dominant team upon joining the ACC. In assessing the "intangibles" that are characteristic of meaningful rivalries, this has not been a particularly competitive series, or one made meaningful by competition for championships, and the players, alumni and fans do not perceive the universities and/or teams to be significant rivals on any level. For FSU, its biggest rivals are Florida, Miami and to a lesser extent, Clemson; Georgia Tech's biggest rival remains Georgia, with ACC rivals Clemson and Virginia Tech far behind. For a sample of alumni and fans' current perceptions of this series as a "rivalry," this survey is instructive: [33]. With 16 games played in the 23 years since FSU joined the ACC in 1992, this series is barely a blip on the "rivalry" radar of either fan base.

Someone will inevitably argue that the best ACC years of this series were the pre-internet 1990s; that's a red herring -- most of that coverage is readily available either online freely or through the major online newspaper archive services. As a modern era in-conference series, this "rivalry" should be held to the highest level of notability scrutiny with truly significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines of
WP:GNG. That kind of consistent significant coverage of this series as a "rivalry" is lacking, and this is a good place to start pruning the bloated category of purported college football "rivalries" that even the respective fans and alumni don't recognize as such. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The consensus was for Delete. Okay... while I feel this topic is notable and improvable
under a different name, and while a desire for WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage is not a guideline or policy mandate, I concede that others feel differently and that continued discussion with not reach resolution. As closing as no-consensus is a consideration, I'd be okay if anyone wishes to reverse me and re-close in that manner. But in consideration of my own thoughts on the matter, if anyone wishes this userfied for work outside of mainspace for a possible return under a proper title, just ask.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The Global Indian Film and TV Honours

The Global Indian Film and TV Honours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The award is non-notable as we can't establish if third-party sources even consider it notable. All references seen on web are reports of the event. The article claims that it’s a jury award but does not highlight the process of award selection etc.
The award is presented by
Baa Bahu Aur Baby, Kahaani Ghar Ghar Ki, Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya, Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai, Tere Liye (TV series), Gulaal (TV series), Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? and Saath Nibhaana Saathiya.
Apart from television, BT with its subsidiary Balaji Motion Pictures (BMP) also produces Bollywood films and people associated with following films have been given awards so far which are produced by BMP: Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai and The Dirty Picture.
These are all conflict of interest incidences and there might be more which I haven't caught up yet. The main contributors of the article who have been accused of socking and/or doing PR-like work on Wikipedia are: Noormohammed satya, Noor119848, Greatuser, Srajput40 and Noorsatya. Having an article on Wikipedia is surely a large advertisement and with least cost and hence it should be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can point to in-depth coverage by
reliable sources unaffiliated with the awarders and awardees. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Using WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Other than "Mid-Day (2)", which also is more like an advertisement of Geetanjali Jewels - a sponsor of one event, rest all are trivial mentiones, like Vidya Balan answering a question by the journalist at the event, Ekta Kapoor, owner of all this, mentioning in her quote that Priyanka Chopra dances very well, or in Amitabh Bachchan's articles where "he-also-won-this-award" is the last line of the articles. GNG expects "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail" which @Psychonaut: also mentions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem rather strange to expect that an article about Indian film and TV cannot itself be covered by Indian film or TV. The honors
WP:NONENG coverage. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
According to you, what should receive coverage; the actual award or the event? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the content of the
list article, I should think both, but with emphasis on the awards events themselves. The place to speak about the awarding organization itself would be at the arguably notable Global Indian Awards with its "Film and TV Honours" being spoken of therein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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

And
WP:INDAFD: "Global Indian Awards"

I agree with
general notability guideline which you yourself referenced. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
MQS, how are "Global Indian Awards" and "The Global Indian Film and TV Honours" related? The former was started by some Ary Sarker and honoured Indian diaspora in science and entrepreneurship.ref I see no connection of this with Ekta Kapoor's award ceremony. But good you found it, we need to now exclude many search results as both share same strings in title. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing:

Using (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and in using
WP:INDAFD, it appears to me that someone did not follow naming conventions when creating the article title. The topic of "Global Indian Film Awards" is not unsourcable. A proper article needs to be created, expanded, and properly sourced and this improperly titled article simply merged within it. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Now how are
Sunil Shetty. Still no connection with Ekta Kapoor's trophy looting event. And, before you propose that they are related to Global Indian Music Academy Awards please note that they are not! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The common mis-spelling from newer Indian editors have the words "honours" and "awards" often used interchangeably. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable award function. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage demonstrated to meet
WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Can you give links of these significant coverage that address the topic directly and in detail as required by GNG? We have various awards like
"LOTSOFGHITS" isn't really helping establish notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Fine to ask, but as nice as the GNG is, it is NOT the only means by which a topic might be found notable. Indeed,
WP:N tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple [less than in depth] independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", thus that when in-depth coverage is lacking, a number of less-than-in-depth sources can show notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, whatever you are quoting in green is nowhere on Wikipedia:Notability, unless it was removed after you posted and while I looked for it. And even if they wrote such, we are not able to find anything in any number of sources that demonstrate notability. All you find is she wore red, he danced on this song, the producer is going oh-wow, the winner is in cloud nine and all; (Actually you aren't even finding all these in any independent RS.) leave alone any criticism (positive or negative) about the award. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in a stricter notability criteria about BLP's at
WP:BASIC. I'm sorry you missed it. And that you personally find nothing does not mean others have that same issue. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, the notability criterion you quoted comes from guidelines specific to biographies. Why, then, are you quoting it in support of a discussion about an award ceremony? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bring it forward because Wikipedia is far more serious about BLPs, not less.... and a guide suitable for a more serious situation can certainly be applied to one that is less so. And too, the giving of awards to living persons IS a BLP issue. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but those arguments are simply ridiculous. I think you're grasping at straws here. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No straw grasping, thank you... just an understanding of guideline, thanks. However, what is "ridiculous" is to say it is ridiculous to apply a BLP guideline toward a BLP situation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But neither are you showing us anything worthy over here or by editing the article. Firstly you had your
WP:RS, and expect that from every well-meaning editor. And then you are back to making generic statements of how its notable and blah blah still without showing any sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources provided establish the notability of the award. Just a brief mention does not constitute notability. Any of the above "Keep" arguments does not talk/argue about the notability in itself, forget about the article. Also, as mentioned by the nominator, the connections between organizer and award winning soaps/films makes these as made-up events. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing shown here, nor could be found on searches to show the award meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_2&oldid=1142626422"~~~~