Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The way this discussion is going this is not going to end with a "delete". In addition, I do have my doubts about this nomination, which seems to be a bit vengeful. So I'm closing this early, hoping to create a bit of distance between the two editors, and with a warning to the nominator of this AfD to try and leave personal things out of this. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Khoury

Amin Khoury (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 believe this to be a vanity page. Notability not inherited because of company he founded. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Since the article isn't based on inherited notability, the nominating reason it void. (Not to mention that this is simply a revenge nomination). Several reliable sources have covered the subject over both his business and charity activities. Additionally, he founded a S&P 400 company that is notable. Passes GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niteshift36 is the author of the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am the author. And we all know that is why you nominated this. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is it seems to be a vanity page and notability is not inherited. CrazyAces489 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep pretending that and maybe someone else will pretend to believe it. Regardless, since nobody has asserted that he inherited notability from anyplace, I'm not sure why you insist on repeating it over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seems reasonably sourced from a variety of sources. Some of the sources seem focused on the company, but the Bloomberg and Scripps (the latter focusing specifically on him) sources push me to a keep. The subject is involved with several entities, not just one, so the notability in question may extend past the founding of a single company.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I only find one source that is actually about him, #9 Scripps. The others are all: directory-like listings - some which mention him, and some which do not (only the company); the company web site itself; about students who got a scholarship he funded. It should be possible to find more about him giving the scholarship, which usually at least gets a press release from the school. With other third-party sources, this would be a clear keep. LaMona (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that the executive profile at Bloomberg, a section solely devoted to him, is also stronger than you're giving it credit. While it way be under the company heading, a significant amount of writing is devoted to Khoury. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 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 arguments and evidence that this is a hoax are persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Johns

Sebastian Johns (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable under

• Delete -
  YO 😜 02:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would be happy to change to keep if there were any evidence he played for the England team or is a professional polo player. He is not mentioned at all on the club page. Please provide some evidence. Thank you.

YO 😜 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. I can find no mention of a Sebastian Johns playing for the Guards Polo Club. There is a Sebastian Johns who is indeed a musician and has presumably recently left Abingdon School, where this Sebastian Johns claims to have been educated, so I suspect the article may be a hoax and he's actually a recent schoolboy with pretensions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 6 July 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. The sources found by Michig should be added to the article, with appropriate text. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Way

Mikey Way (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 person is absolutely not notable outside of his one band (his other band doesn't yet scratch the surface of notability. The only thing that is relevant at all is this interview here, but one interview does not notability make. A redirect to the band was reverted, so here we are. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is quite a bit of coverage of Mikey Way and his new band has received some coverage: MTV, NME, Rock Sound, Rock Sound (front cover showing there's an article inside), Kerrang! interview, Kerrang!, Belfast Telegraph, Allmusic bio, and he has a signature bass produced by Squier ([8]). So the state of this article probably is not representative of the coverage that exists. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Way's old band, My Chemical Romance, retains notability and an active fanbase, while his new bands gains notoriety (having recently released an EP.) Way was also featured on the cover of AP Magazine not too long ago (http://www.altpress.com/magazine/issue/309_100_bands_you_need_to_know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatileinferno (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Way is a notable muscian being covered by the press multiple times since the start of MCR and is notable outside of MCR having played with other bands as well. I.Wont.Give.In (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article and listed here establish notability for Way above and beyond any one band. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 8 July 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.

White Southerners

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

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

Unsourced; original research. A topic like this would need a lot of backing research considering the controversy surrounding it. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article utterly fails
  WP:GNG. I'm finding a few blogs and some other sources that refer to "southerners" being a socioethnic group, but nothing of substance and reliability that would warrant an article. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete!!! Surely a hoax? Alec Station (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be written to make some kind of point, or let off steam, or whatever. Merge to Southern United States. The article is much better now, but the material is already covered in the main article. The info here is worthwhile and could be added there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not a hoax and I'm not letting off steam. This is a legit article about the Southern ethnicity. We are a separate people with our own history, culture, etc and I thought it'd be a good idea to type up a Wikipedia article about us. Now mind you I have a bit of a problem with procrastinating and I am taking the time tonight to really make the article look good. I have sources, etc. I am currently planning it out on a word document. So please, don't delete it.(MelungeonEire (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• I ask that you don't delete this. I've put a bit of work on the article and I ask all of you to help me with it. Down South, we consider Southern to be an ethnicity and it has been proven by various historians that we are ethnically and culturally distinct from the rest of the United States. I plan on continuously working on this article from now on. (MelungeonEire (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Proven by which "various historians"? I see you added
  a rather large amount of sources, but none of them seem to support this article's subject. This source mentions "white Southerners" only once and not in an ethnic context, this doesn't seem to mention it at all, and most of the sources have no page numbers whatsoever. In what way do any of these sources support the content of the article, and why go through the trouble of adding them all without a specific page number? - Aoidh (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge to
  George Patton to link to his own creation. There is not a lot of content to the article and I find the timing of its creation to the furor over the Confederate battle flag curious. We went through this shuffle earlier this year when editors started creating pages trying to prove that the southern states were all, briefly, independent countries in 1861.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, I had similar feelings about the timing too. I thought that I subsequently checked the article history and found that it was created before the Charleston church shooting, but looking again now, it was created the day after. Nonetheless, I don't think we should judge whether the topic is worth covering on the basis of the intentions of the article creator. In fact, if we can have well-written, sourced coverage, that might actually deter people from writing their own soapbox coverage (maybe). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Page creator is also suspected of editing page as User:PennsilfaanischTatar (SPI pending).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the sources listed support the existence of an ethnic group called "Southerners", which I doubt. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, one author not included amongst the sources who does view Southerners as an ethnic group is John Shelton Reed. Whether his work alone is enough to justify an article that asserts that Southerners are an ethnic group, I doubt. Personally, I would just include a brief note in the Southern United States article to the effect that some scholars consider there to be a distinct Southern ethnic identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reed's publications on this include a chapter in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. I've struck my delete comment for now, pending more discussion of the issues raised by the Reed sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice: I have rewritten the article based on reliable sources that I was able to access. Whether this merits it being saved, I will leave to others to judge. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Larry. I crossed out my delete and changed to merge to Southern United States. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this merge. Great work Larry. My main concern from here is the edgy nature of this article. I'm not saying it should be excluded because of that, but I would encourage any editors reading this to add it to their watch page, because I could see this page being abused quite quickly. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the article on my watchlist, but I'd be happy with a merge to Southern United States because it seems to be a pretty niche view that Southerners constitute an ethnic group, and better covered there than in its own article unless more sources can be found. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging Aoidh, Alec Station and Gaarmyvet in case they want to revisit their comments in light of my rewrite. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've responded below, thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This article makes me cringe! Southerners in and of themselves are not an "ethnic group" anymore than mid-westerners, northerners, or any other part of the United States. There is nothing
  WP:NPOV about leading off with "White Southerners" as the criteria. Is the author implying that anyone without white skin cannot be considered a Southerner? We don't need this flawed POV, cited with decades old sourcing, merged. This has one point of view, and it doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria. No way.— Maile (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as
  WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual. Especially given that this single author's opinions are over 30 years old, if there were any merit to this article's subject someone would have picked up on it and there would be sources but there seems to be nothing of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • On a purely technical note, it's untrue to say that the article is based on the work of one author alone. Predating Reed is Lewis Killian's work, and some other authors are mentioned. The idea has also received secondary coverage (e.g. from Dillman and M. G. Smith). Dillman notes that "this concept of Southerners as a distinct American ethnic group has been presented for more than a decade, and it continues to gain momentum". Whether we agree with use of the concept or not, it's clearly not just the idea of one author. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:
  Southerners (Ethnic Group) to White Southerners. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I thought it'd be more fitting, since this refers to White Southerners. (MelungeonEire (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• I read the new article and while it seems improved it still lacks plausibility. My white (Australian) sister and her (South African born & Jewish) husband live in Atlanta. Shall I tell them they have a new ethnicity? They are white and live in the American South so it would seem so. Alec Station (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alec Station, note that the article isn't saying that Southerners are an ethnic group. It is saying that some academics and others consider them to be an ethnic group. That is a different thing, and is verified by the sources cited. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cordless Larry, pardon me but academics (especially the non-scientific) claim loads of ideas and concepts. Doesn't something have to be widely accepted by a neutral group or at least accepted before it goes into wikipedia. Methinks John Shelton Reed is a bit into the American South and maybe needs some peer review. Alec Station (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, there needs to be coverage in secondary sources, but those are cited in the article too. Reed clearly is into the South, as you put it, but I think the journals he's published in that we cite here are peer reviewed. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any journals only books, except the Harvard encyclopaedia that was refuted by a real anthropologist. Seems like he's confused between culture and ethnicity. Alec Station (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • True - sorry, Alec Station, I confused the sources with some others I read while researching this. Books by university presses are generally peer reviewed, however, and Reed and others have published on this in peer-reviewed journals, such as this and this. I've also just found some more secondary coverage in the New York Times. Whether Reed is right or wrong to consider Southern an ethnicity doesn't come into it for me - that's not for us to judge; we should just present what the sources say, including the criticism. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Very clearly, white southerners is an identity which is peppered throughout Wikipedia already search results revealing 2,283 occurrences. I would also like to point out that per Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that black southerners is also a notable identity and this search is revealing at 2,141 occurrences so that is a worthwhile article to make as well. To deny either group is a violation of
  MOS:IDENTITY.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist per new findings to allow for wider input and article improvement.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly a notable concept. (But is there a better criteria than "I know it when I see it" for concepts? Please comment here: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of concepts) Article name change and additional work make it a keeper. Creating an article now will dissuade (or at least allow a good response) for future attempts at poor article starts. Will attract vandals for sure, and will be hard to maintain NPOV, but those aren't reasons to delete. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG, as far as I see it. Whether or not Southerners constitute an ethnic group is clearly open to debate, but this article does at least now attempt to reflect that debate. As I mentioned above, the article doesn't say that Southerners are an ethnic group, but that they are considered by some authors to be an ethnic group. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Every theory by "some authors" doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic article. This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts. I believe the policy is related to fringe theories. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough (although more than one author makes the claim, and there is secondary coverage). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 6 July 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.

Dragon Stakes

Dragon Stakes (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 includes no indication of subject's notability. KDS4444^Talk 19:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like a perfectly decent stub article to me. Plenty of sources available. Lots of room for development obviously, but not the sort of thing that deserved an AFD tag dropped on it an hour after it was created. Tigerboy1966  13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding has been that the length of time before an article may be considered for an AfD nomination is measured in minutes, not hours, and the article had no reliable, independent sources when I nominated it. It still does not. As an AfD nomination, it still has six more days for someone to add such references to halt the nomination process: AfD is quite generous in this way.KDS4444^Talk 17:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "may" and "should". Just seems a bit of a silly waste of time to nominate this when you have two very experienced editors working to bring it up to scratch. Good luck. Tigerboy1966  18:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article seems to have undergone considerable development since it was nominated for deletion. It is not unreasonable to assume that it can and will be further developed. Maybe an {{under construction}} tag might be an idea to hold off any further premature AfD nominations? 86.145.211.233 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article has a number of references now to establish notability. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted G4 by Bbb23 –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu

Presbyterian Reformed Church in Vanuatu (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 has only one reference which is not

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added after closure: I'm butting in after closure to note that I happened to be trying to develop the article, perhaps to rescue it, when coincidentally the Speedy Deletion came through Kerplunkt! and the article was gone. For reasoning explained here with a source linked, i then decided it is not worth recreating; it seems to me that the topic is not a separate denomination from Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia) which considers 3 local churches in Vanuatu to be its own. This note just to record this thinking in case this topic comes up again. --doncram 02:05, 9 July 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.

Maru (cat)

Maru (cat) (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)

Page built around a cat that has videos of itself on Youtube. Does not appear to be notable, unless sheer volume of videos uploaded on Youtube is now a measure of notability Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Maru is well-known and has been featured in books, TV, commercials, etc. Notice there are articles on Maru in about 10 wikis. Please follow
  YO 😜 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I respectfully disagree. Maru is not well-known, and the only reliable source cited on the entire page that deals exclusively with Maru is a single USA Today article about the release of the Maru book, dating to 2011. The remainder of the references appear to be blog posts and primary sources (ie, written by Maru's owner) and 2 articles that talk about the popularity of cats on YouTube and mention Maru only in passing. In any case, I see no category under which Maru would be notable - clearly not

WP:PEOPLE, as Maru is not a person, so why is Maru notable? Rockypedia (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You have to LOOK for references before you nominate an article for AfD! And there is nothing that says the subject of the article has to be a person. There are many articles about notable animals, entire categories.

YO 😜 00:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and move Maru's info to
  List_of_cats#Cats_famous_in_their_own_right - I just discovered this list, which is a far more appropriate place for putting Maru's info than an entire page. My apologies for not suggesting this right off the bat, as I was not aware of that list. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Struck duplicate !vote; your nomination is your !vote.

talk) 21:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Maru clears notability easily. As suggested by his inclusion on
  List_of_cats#Cats_famous_in_their_own_right, Maru is famous. That's his fame is mostly in impermanent online media shouldn't be used against him. Fitnr 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's not that his fame is in impermanent online media, it's that there is only 1 source that's considered a reliable secondary source. As you know, blogs are not considered reliable sources, and the rest of the sources are primary, also not good enough to establish notability.Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article includes references to the New York Times, Entertainment Weekly and USA Today. Fitnr 22:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Next time, please remember
  talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not sure what you're arguing, as there were no references removed from the page. Rockypedia (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that articles are notable if they have sources not cited in the article - it is good practice to do one quick search. Even a thrity-second search will find enough sources for a notable subject to be notable, and you will easily find non-notable ones.

talk) 22:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - This guy has removed my edit without a good explanation and then posted Maru here to be deleted. Wtf is wrong with this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.126.233 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are now multiple citations that demonstrate Maru's fame beyond YouTube views. He is used as the lead example in a Wired article regarding the cultural fascination with cats on the internet. --Hotpinkcats (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I
  canvassing). To be honest, I am not sure this is entirely necessary as there seems to be a lot less heated debate here than I anticipated and I don't see any really evidence of edit-warring on the article page that could create any issues. Whilst I am not seeing vast swathes of content online where Maru is the sole subject, there are examples of that in the article now along with a number of other sources which discuss Lolcats in more general terms, but in which Maru is central to the article, namely: USA Today, and NY Times. I can also see specific coverage of Maru within the lolcats fad in The Guardian, Wired and more from Wired. Finally, I note that there has been little attempt to discuss Maru's presence in Japanese media. I'm not sure that anyone can be dismissive of notability without such an analysis. It seems, and I'm not sure this is a good thing to say, but in the field of lolcats, Maru does seem to be preeminent. Certainly there seems sufficient coverage of this particular cat to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Even Adweek called him "the Internet's Top Cat": [9]. Michitaro (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting
  WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and I suggest a speedy close. Just because a topic is not important to the eye of a beholder doesn't mean it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. There's a massive volume and considerable depth of coverage; individual cats or dogs being cultural icons is nothing new, and while having a lot of YouTube views doesn't automatically make a person or animal notable, it can, and in this case does. —innotata 06:54, 7 July 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. There has been no interest in the merge discussion since April, and there is not enough input here. Under the circumstances there's not much reason to relist it. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (comics)

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

)

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

Attempted AfD before, but Twinkle (which I use to automate process) failed and I did not know.

Article is about a ridiculously trivial topic. Has not met requirement for multiple third part reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to the topic. Only references are to the primary sources, which prove it happened but not that it's notable. No attempt to improve article since concerns were raised. Tag was added to discuss merger, but there's not even enough reliable source coverage to merit inclusion in any other article in Wikipedia either. DreamGuy (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G per tag that was added to article in April. No merge, redirection, or discussion was attempted in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a part of a size split from the parent article Great Lakes Avengers. There's no reason for a deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:17, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pulau Besar Museum

Pulau Besar Museum (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:ORG. Sources including one blog merely confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Malacca is a historic place with lots of museums. These are notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Melaka History and Heritage in Museums. There may be some scope for merger, especially for those which are housed in the same building complex but, per our policies
  WP:PRESERVE, this would not be done by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

you've recycled this same argument in various afds but fail to show in-depth coverage about this specific museum. WP:PRESERVE does not override if an article is not notable. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the book reference you've supplied doesn't even appear to even mention this museum, that's what happens when you recycle the same AfD argument over and over again. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More non-blog reference sources have been added, including from Malaysia online newspaper (Utusan Online) and Malaysia national news agency (Bernama). More information have been added: on the transport to get to the island, purpose of the museum construction, museum sequence, museum owner, museum opening time etc. Chongkian (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with
  reliable sources.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Taylor (footballer, born 1997)

Harry Taylor (footballer, born 1997) (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 footballer, he's only just signed a pro contract, and hasn't played a match in a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he plays and passes a notability guideline. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
  WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 6 July 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.