Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velaga Venkatappaiah

Velaga Venkatappaiah (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 KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a small obituary online [7], but I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Not enough for an article. Jujutacular (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can actually be better improved as I'm not currently seeing any. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above....It is a obituary and not wiki note worthy..BrianGroen (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fails notability stnadards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:41, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhushuk

Zhushuk (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)

Contains how-to content,

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk | _contribs) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk | _contribs) 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - misspelled name; I tagged as article already exists at
  YO 😜 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have declined speedy delete as
  shuzhuk has no content and is a redirect to Sujuk. I felt that this could be merged and redirected to the latter though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Obviously I meant Sujuk and not the redirect. None of the content in the article is referenced at all in the listed references and appears to be OR, so I wouldn't recommend merging it.

YO 😜 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - on basis of article already existing under another name. No merge, since this article lacks inline citations, it is uncertain what is
  WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 26 October 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 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Secure Yourself from ATM Theft

How to Secure Yourself from ATM Theft (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)

• Delete, per nom and
  WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTHOWTO. It's not an encyclopedia article.- MrX 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as the initial
  /tlk /cntrb 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow Delete - Perfect example of
  WP:NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow Delete This is that rare case that the speedy deletion guidelines are made for. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 25 October 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.

Alcohol use among college students

Alcohol use among college students (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 simply WP:OR. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I agree that this is
  WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete KEEP (the article as it is now is OR). The opening sentence says: "College drinking is the consumption of alcohol by students on the campus of any college or university." Who says so? I've never heard of "college drinking." Although Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States by college students, on or off campus, is a notable topic (in the USA anyway). Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL-REASON). Rather, it just means we need to improve the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

At the very least we need to change the opening sentence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep. Topic is notable and important.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't particularly disagree that this is a really poor article, especially at the beginning, but I'm not seeing grounds for deletion. I wouldn't say this is original research, though
  WP:SYNTH may well be relevant. But we're here to discuss the topic of the article. As such, inclusion guidelines concern whether it's encyclopedic, whether it can be verified from reliable sources, and whether it's notable. These are properties of the topic, not the article as presented. I'm no academic, but I guarantee that any editor here, can, in 5 minutes, come up with books, journal articles, and extensive media coverage of alcohol use among college students and its broad societal implications. Someone should post the appropriate flags to the article to improve its substance, but the topic clearly merits inclusion. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:SYNTH is part of WP:OR. The vary nature of the topic is original research/SYNTH.Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As it is now it is poor condition but the topic seems notable. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 October 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.

Dinesh Singh (academic)

Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. Most of the article discusses a non-notable controversy. Reliance on India based news services, most of which are little more than blogs posing as newspapers produces articles and bios with a lot of dead links over time like this one -- Swapnil Joshi -- so don't be immediately wowed by all the references to India based news sites which move links and delete articles all the time. It's more troublesome since posting controversial content could result in all of it pointing to dead links over time which is a BLP concern. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In AfDs, it's implied that the nominator supports deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm inclined to feel like this article is more trouble than it's worth. The subject is primarily notable for his controversies, so any article we have must focus on those. Yet the sources don't really give much neutral context for those controversies. I'M certainly left scratching my head wondering what it's all about. So I'm inclined to swing to delete, unless someone can do something to clean the mess up. Thus us a potentially damaging BLP, after all.
  Biały 17:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - unless being the recipient of the Padma Shri award is not enough for notability. If this is merely a content concern, then deleting the entire article is not the answer. I'm also concerned by the motives of a brand new user's first major action being the creation of this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard. No hidden agenda here. This is an article with a non-notable controversy about a non-notable subject. Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted. The article was reported for repeated insertion of poorly sourced content. If the articles only purpose is to discuss a controversy, then the controversy must be notable, which is is not. This is not the place for tabloid gossip from blogs in India. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." I assume this is directed at me. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization as "the editor". I didn't write the article, although I did at one point "edit" the article to reduce the amount of ephemeral gossip. But surely that does not qualify for the definite article "the". Others have done much more editing there than I have. However, I also do recognize that it is problematic, for some of the same reasons you have already articulated.

Biały 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Admin note: 97.126.235.119 is suspected of being the nominator BLPDegreaser, editing while logged out, and has been blocked as a

WP:SOCK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." Statistics show at least 8 "distinct authors" of that article. The article has existed for over 1.5 years. The only point of this discussion is whether the subject of the article is notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Padma Shri and Vice Chancellor of a major university are each usually considered sufficient reason to keep. So to me the only possible justification for a deletion would be that the BLP violations are so intractable that we can't possibly clean them up or keep them cleaned up. Is that really the case? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree per Uncle Milty and David Eppstein. Clean up? Yes. Delete? No. As with Uncle Milty, it is also concerning to me that one of the first edits by a new editor is coming here to start this AfD. Czoal (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- quite obviously notable, per
  WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Yes the "Controversies" section needs to be cleaned up but that doesn't mean we should delete the article of this person that is clearly notable.
  talk) 04:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - This should be
  snow-closed. Obviously, the subject is notable. Most importantly, the nominator and the IP were blocked for socking. And the IP made very clear what their motives are with regard to getting BLPs deleted or at least removing as much content from them as possible. Czoal (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. He's the vice-chancellor of a major university for crying out loud! Even without all the other stuff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm not sure if this matters with regard to how quickly this AfD will be disposed of, but the nominator retired immediately after their block for socking expired. They are now using only their IP account to edit. Czoal (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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) 12:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conroy Stewart

Conroy Stewart (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)

Poorly-sourced biography of an artist. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm currently not seeing much convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Conroy Stewart I've I think I have made the necessary adjustments in order to deem this notable. Let me know if I need to add anything further to legitimize this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourdreamsmelody (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  talk) 15:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 26 October 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. Consensus is that the company has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bamtino

Bamtino (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 company that made a press release a few weeks ago. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's unlikely enough for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as probably to soon. Also
  talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as above, lacks significant worthwhile coverage. Looks promotional, article created by editor whose only edit has been the creation of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 25 October 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Nominator has withdrawn the Afd nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adesola Kazeem Adeduntan

Adesola Kazeem Adeduntan (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 dont see any real claim to notability here: references are essentially about copmpanies worked for rather than the man himself. Article is probably promotional in intent: it reads lake a CV. TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep media references at the bottom of the article. South Nashua (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination, did not see that this had already passed AfD even though not about a Pokemon character,TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 18 October 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 as this seems the likely consensus and the current article seems currently acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeralean Talley

Jeralean Talley (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 individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. People known for longevity alone should get articles if their longevity is strong enough. An age like 115 is strong enough. An age like 90 is not. Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources does equate to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Non-policy-based nomination, which appears to be based on
  WP:BASIC. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep Yet another non-policy based nomination from this user (see [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). This individual clearly passes
  WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 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.

Antonia Gerena Rivera

Antonia Gerena Rivera (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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. One of the sources even states there is virtually no media coverage. The sources used don't help either. 1 is a name and residence (1 power point slide of about 50+), 2 and 3 are a listing in a table, 4 is for her 115th birthday (note: this source says there is virtually no news coverage on her) and the last is an obituary. She is notable to be on a list, which she is on several. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]

Longevity is not one event any more than being an artist or a politician is one event. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as per the last AfD which was only four months ago (not much has changed since). She was the all-time longevity record holder for Puerto Rico. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The prior SPA was (as this one is on its way to being) sock-infested. [13] EEng (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with Ollie231213. also, User:
  talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Keep The previous AfD regarding this page - which was only a few months ago - was closed as keep. Nothing has changed in the article since then, so why nominate it for deletion again? She recieved sufficient news coverage to adequately source the article, and is the oldest women ever from Puerto Rico. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:NOPAGE, as usual. The article says almost nothing about her -- it's full of junk about how she was the sixth oldest blah blah, after the seventh oldest became the ninth oldest when the certified third oldest died and the second oldest had doubt cast. The prior AfD was sock-infested. EEng (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians, I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you. Firstly, world's oldest person/woman/man titleholders typically get a lot of media coverage, implying that being the WOP/WOW/WOM is notable. Occasionally they don't, but this may be for reasons such as the person being in poor health, wanting to remain anonymous, or whatever. But even if that's the case, that doesn't make their achievement any less. It's still the same "title". Therefore, I think that a more general discussion about whether WOPs/WOWs/WOMs are notable needs to take place, to see if consensus can be reached. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep She most certainly is notable. She was the last living person from the Florida, the last living Hispanic American, and the last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the
  talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits
  outside this topic.

NOTE: I have restored this "keep" vote after it was removed by EEng. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: What I removed was a series of bizarre edits, including a spurious "close" [14], by an editor with with 34 edits who can't decide whether he's an IP or not. It's not my job to find some kernel of contribution in that kind of nonsense. EEng (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a user with an IP. This is the first time I've done a talk page. Go easy on me, please.

talk) 21:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Is it so difficult to just apologise for making a mistake? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all apologizing‍—‌when I've made a mistake. If you can get all the longevity sock- and meat-puppets on board to not close AfDs after just two days, switch back and forth from IP to logged-in editing, and so on, that would really help. EEng (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the IP and the account are the same person? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP and the account (my account) are not the same person. The IP in question is "User 166." He//she is a notorious troll from California who has repeatedly vandalized articles on supercentenarians by doing things such as putting in false death dates. I, on the other hand, am from Florida, and have had the honor of personally meeting Mrs. Gerena Rivera. If you looked up my IP address, and read my article on Turning Point USA (which can be found here: http://hypeline.org/antonia-gerena-rivera-a-look-into-the-past), you would see that. Furthermore, User 166 has been banned. I have not. That alone should be proof that I am not him/her.

talk

)

Read my Hypeline article for information about her uniqueness and how she has affected other people. She gave a learning experience not only to her former students, but to me, who interviewed her as a project on the differences in outlooks on life between different generations. [User:DaKardii|DaKardii]] (

talk) 12:08 24 October 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep She is certainly notable: over 115 years old when she died; one of the last 10 living people worldwide, last living person from Florida, last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belandi76 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Belandi76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete
  WP:GNG? Any way you slice, dice, mince or mangle these "sources" you do not wind up with a bio appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least not if you're following Wikipedia's rules. David in DC (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As mentioned above, not much has changed since the last nomination. On top of that, it's still interesting how some people can judge that an article is worth deleting when a quick Google search identifies potential new sources; instead of opting for deletion, they could also try and improve the article - as that would be a sign of building on the Wiki community - or labelling the article a stub that requires expansion. Deletion is not the answer to everything.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Aside from someone seriously needing to put all the socks back in the drawer (there appear to be some on both sides), being a supercentenarian with a well-sourced article indeed seems to equal notability. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DaKardii, Montanabw, and Ollie231213 provide good arguments for notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above that the subject is notable. We have sources that document her notability, and there is precedent (and a recent AFD) that support it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as discussed in the first AfD nomination for this article, and many other AfD's regarding articles on people that are notable for longevity. Longevity of life is not a single event; many sources on longevity cite events that have occurred during longevity, such as 114th birthdays, etc - these are single events. Therefore, this article subject does not qualify for
  WP:1E and only used for BLP articles, which does not apply here. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - As per above arguments and in fact there is no difference since the last AfD nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Of course someone who's 115 gets written up in the paper--but note that all the coverage is indeed from the local paper. That kind of coverage typically does not add up to notability. Sorry, but I don't see a lot of decent arguments in this discussion--"seems to be notable" isn't an argument, and "well she's the oldest woman so she's notable" is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing has changed since the last AfD--well, that was not a very strong AfD in terms of arguments.

  So. Old people aren't inherently notable, though that may change, and thus discussion here needs to focus on the strength of the sources. Well, three of the references are from the

  Bradenton Herald. But wait, look again--it's the same article. In other words we have one (1) valid reference for the topic.

  I have no doubt one could Google and find a couple more articles, but my point is that even a bunch of such articles don't easily add up to notability--not until there's something discussing her in any kind of depth, something a bit broader than the local paper. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Hi,

notability. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi,

talk

)

• How is the GRG not considered a secondary source? It's not self-published or published by someone close to the subject. And reliability isn't based on media coverage alone. The fact that she is verified by the GRG, #37 on the all-time list, and also the recordholder for Puerto Rican women and Florida residents, is evidence of notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Antonia Gerena Rivera is still the oldest Puerto Rican woman ever and she was also the oldest Florida resident ever. We had this AfD just a little while ago and the result was KEEP, so why start this discussion again? The article is still the same as the one that existed at the time of the first AfD. 930310 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Lack of reliable, independent, signifiant coverage: The Gerontology Research Group sources are a research organization publishing their findings on their own website. Similar to an award's website publishing their winners. We need other organizations reporting their information. But "there has been virtually no news coverage of this woman's existence" [15], another finding by the same organization more important than her age or ethnicity. GRG only deals with supercentenarians. Simply being one, or being "oldest..." does not guarantee an article on Wikipedia (similar recent AfDs not keep'd: WP:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Eudoxie Baboul...). Also how could these two data tables [16] [17] possibly qualify as signifiant coverage?

[18] is labelled as a local obituary, generally local news sources can't be used to show notability and I have verified the other [19] as being the same article. Also labelled as a "Breaking News Blog" [20] - "Local breaking news from Bradenton and Manatee County". And I don't think Hypeline can be considered a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

1) I have nothing else to say about the Hypeline source. 2, 3) There are thousands of research groups all over the world doing all sorts of stuff, while they can provide good information, not everything they do is wiki-notable. GRG may be ok as a source for some out of the hundreds if not thousands of people they have looked into who do have articles, but they are not notable just because of what GRG did for them, they have other sources and/or reasons. 4) An obituary in a local newspaper (remember, both are the same) is not a sign of notability, think about it. GRG's non-age finding that I mentioned should be taken into consideration as well. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, and simply outliving other people does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because she is not "notable" by your standards, her secrets to longevity don't deserve to be heard?

talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

But then they wouldn't be secrets anymore, would they? EEng (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect - to List_of_oldest_living_people. Not notable for standalone article unless notable for some other reason than living so long. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not everyone turns 115. In my opinion someone who wins the genetic lottery is notable compared to other people. They are covered in the news and thus notable. Petervermaelen (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - While
  WP:GNG apply, it appears the standard has been set that "oldest" in a valid category does in fact establish a thin enough amount of notability to count for inclusion.Tiggerjay (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where has that "standard" been "set"? Notability is set by coverage only. Certain types of people e.g. Nobel winners, are presumed notable because it's presumed they will have received GNG-satisfying coverage, to save trouble in such common cases. But such presumptions are rebuttable i.e. if it turns out they don't pass GNG/BP1E after all, then they're not notable after all. EEng (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to apply

WP:GNG applies to all cases of course. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

and Rivera will forever be remembered as the sixth oldest living woman at the time of her death. No one will have that title. 166.171.121.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sixth oldest of 7,300,000,000 people, oldest verified person ever born in Puerto Rico and resident of Florida. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bearian put it better was "well-established precedent" that super-centenarians have their own pages, and are notable for that fact alone. While some have more developed pages, the reality is that most of them wouldn't receive the coverage on WP if they were not super-centenarians with their own pages. It was for that one-event that triggered a deeper look into the lives of these people and uncovered additional notable facts about their past. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a several editors have noted, the
  well-established precedents favor keeping articles of extremely old super-centenarians. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 27 October 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.

Charlotte Klamroth

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Charlotte Klamroth (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 individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable
  WP:GNG and the oldest person ever in a country confers notability.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep this page about this deceased person, per analysis by Montanabw, above. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 22 October 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.

Tiny Instruments

Tiny Instruments (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)

Recently-published e-book that does not satisfy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't appear to meet
  /tlk /cntrb 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not notable. //nepaxt 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's simply no obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 19 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vsun Mobile

Vsun Mobile (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)

There is some notability claim, but this article looks heavy promotional Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no obvious improvement and the current article is not exactly entirely acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - other than a single hit which was a link to the company's website, not a single thing on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:33, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santanu Mishra

Santanu Mishra (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 Indian businessman, SPA-written article. Available sourcing is about the Smile Foundation, not about Santanu Mishra. He is mentioned in passing, or acts as representative of the organization in interviews. The article's sources lack independent in-depth coverage about Mishra himself. Ref #1 starts with a 1-sentence bio, but that's all. I certainly don't want to diminish his accomplishments, but most of those details should be and actually are in Smile Foundation. Google search found no in-depth coverage about himself. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete likely if it has the benefit of not having to encounter this article again including at another AfD nomination as the only alternative was to simply redirect to Smile Foundation but we can wait for a better independent article whenever the comes. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SALT. Jbh^Talk 11:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable social entrepreneur and an management consultant, hideous vanity article. –
  talk) 16:07, 19 October 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. without prejudice to userfy. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Registration

Deal Registration (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 accepted this article via the

The article is an essay, albeit with referencing. However, the topic is, of itself, bland. "Deal Registration" is simply the ability of a sales channel member to say "I got here first and this possible sale is mine" and this concept does not become encyclopaedic whatever one writes about it. It might be here as a reason to promote

It also contains

I do not view it to be likely that this can be turned into an article since the topic itself fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  12:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft and userfy again if there's no better improvement although I have to say it would seem acceptable at first and with this said, there's no obvious need for urgent deletion and this can simply be worked at until set. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - industry promoting advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:35, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonga (People)

Moonga (People) (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 India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not finding any sources to bolster a notability claim here. As such it's not going to pass
  /tlk /cntrb 19:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete at least for now as this is another case of immediate improvement being unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches didn't turn up anything regarding this clan, although I did learn a lot about silk. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 25 October 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 and creation protected after being recreated multiple times – Fake event that has never existed nor will ever exist given the current naming list. Kimberly is not a name on the Atlantic hurricane list for this year (nor any year, nor any other basin for that matter). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Kimberly

Tropical Storm Kimberly (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)

• Keep. Nothing wrong with starting a new article about these storms that pop up. --clay 10:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• redirect to 2015 Atlantic hurricane season until the storm actually develops WikkiManiack (talk) 11:01, 18 October 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 group theory. There's no reason not to keep the redirect around. This will keep the current URL valid, so existing bookmarks, links from external sites, and search result caches won't go 404-ing on people. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group theory terminology

Group theory terminology (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)

Wikipedia is not a textbook reference. This article should be transwikied to Wikibooks.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with group theory: It's possible that the merger results in an effective deletion of the article. If so, so be it. -- Taku (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is inappropriate, see below. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no redirect, as an unnecessary and less encyclopedic version of existing articles. This article has been around since June 2003; it was initiated by editor
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Considerable work will need to be done as there are about forty articles that point to this one; however, all of the ones that I looked at could be changed to pointing to Group (mathematics), to one of the specific articles listed above, or just removed without loss. If there is a reason that these policies should not apply, please let us non-mathematicians know what it is. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge, to wherever appropriate. In answer to your request,
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply, since glossaries and terminology articles are exceptions to that policy, and each term is covered as a subject rather than as a word. Any facts that are included in this article that are not covered elsewhere should be integrated into the encyclopedia in the appropriate places. The Transhumanist 05:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We already have List of group theory topics for a distribution point, we don't need two such points. --Bejnar (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the horrible nomination rationale, but with no precedent for deleting other glossary/terminology articles. There are some features of textbooks that we don't want to duplicate in Wikipedia, but explanations of the technical vocabulary needed to understand certain important but specialized topics can be perfectly encyclopedic. This particular article, on the other hand, is a disorganized and rambling discourse on a random selection of topics in group theory, better covered already by our other articles in group theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bejnar and David Eppstein. Choor monster (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The page that existed until 2008 looks more like a glossary, and defines some of the terms (which the list of topics doesn't) - would that version be more suitable? Peter James (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the germ of a good idea. Check out Category:Glossaries of mathematics for numerous examples. Choor monster (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to group theory - per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:36, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Scramble

Chicken Scramble (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 Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A weak delete from me; there is significant coverage at Engadget. Didn't see anything else in the VG/RS search. One source might not be good enough. --Izno (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I see nothing obviously better. Pinging tagger Varnent. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There might be references in Chinese sources, but I can't find anything on the searches which shows the notability of this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:37, 26 October 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.

• Either redirect to
  Mati 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Another page about the same subject was created earlier today at
  Mati 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since this AFD is about the subject itself (and not the specific article) I have added it to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just combine any helpful information from the

Redirect? Stubbleboy 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep A significant event in a significant sport. Considering the length and depth of this historic rivalry, I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see that there will soon be more RS discussions of this event than anyone can reasonably endure. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article on the game - The game's entire notability is for it's role in the rivalry -- better covered in the rivalry article -- and for this single play. Delete the article on the play without prejudice toward recreation if adequate sources to demonstrate notability can be found later. I think there will be such sources, but it may be too soon to say. cmadler (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with the recommendation to either redirect to Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry or userfy, until the play's individual notability (or the game's significance for the season) can be properly defended with external citations. This may very well become a notable play, soon or by December. jFiander (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Historically, this event was the first of it's kind. Never has a leading team's punt been blocked in the final seconds, recovered by the opposing team, then ran back for the game winning touchdown as the clock expired. We have an article for the Kick Six event during the 78th Iron Bowl (also a rivalry) which has a section for Coaches and Players, A game recap, and even a Scoring summary. How are any of those sections relevant to the event that happened? Here is your answer, they aren't, and this article could easily include such filler. I'm actually starting to wonder had I have just waited and done all the work myself before creating the article if there would have even been a need for a deletion discussion. There will eventually be a Wikipedia article on this historic event, so I'm not sure why deleting it now would be productive. Stubbleboy 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is nothing historically significant about this game, and of course leading teams have lost in the final seconds of games before, including the circumstances described. And, as far as I am concerned, someone can nominate "Kick Six" for AfD, too. If Wikipedia editors have to invent a cutesy title for the game or borrow one from fan blogs, that's usually a sign that the game probably does not meet our criteria for a stand-alone article. Merely being an exciting game is not enough; there are hundreds of exciting CFB games every season, and dozens are decided in the closing seconds. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're entitled to your own opinion, however you would have to go back and delete TONS of articles if this event isn't significant to warrant it's own. What about this one 2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game? Does it meet your personal criteria of being a valid and worthy article? What about the 2015 MLL All-Star Game? That's the 2015 Major League Lacrosse All-Star Game. What now, you've never heard of it? Big surprise, neither have I. Maybe someone should get busy creating the article for the 2013 MLL Game, because I'm sure it carries just as much notably as 2015 did, right? Stubbleboy 05:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I am entitled to my own opinion, but what you're missing in this discussion is that my "opinion" is backed by a sound understanding of

WP:NOTNEWS, as well as several years of AfD precedents in discussions regarding stand-alone articles about regular season CFB games. You're late to the table, and you haven't done your homework. Again, it's not a coincidence that almost all of the long-time CFB and college sports editors are telling you the same thing. You would do well to heed those "opinions" because they are based on understanding of the relevant guidelines and precedents. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Response

Know it all. Just because you claim to be a lawyer (and ironically one with WAY too much free time on his hands), and like to show off all of your PRIDEFUL little stars and ribbons on your user page, it means nothing in REAL LIFE pal! Thanks, DIRT! It's okay to call you DIRT, right? Stubbleboy 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: I have proposed to merge
  Michigan State Miracle. If you wish to take part in the discussion, you can find it here. Thank you. Stubbleboy 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Stubbleboy, both of these pages are up for deletion. A merge request at this point is useless if they both get deleted/redirected. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does this really even have a name though, have sources called it the "Michigan State Miracle". Wikipedia can't create the name itself or people in the future will think it was actually called that. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the Kick Six article was coined Kick Bama Kick. Michigan head coach Mark Dantonio stated the name of the play was "Rangers: Mission 4-10", in the same article that is entitled "Mark Dantonio gave Michigan State's miracle play a name." Stubbleboy 05:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot possibly know if
  WP:ROUTINE coverage of the game that was going to happen no matter what the outcome was. No point merging existing sparse, mostly unsourced article, when 2015 Michigan Wolverines football team already has comprehensive converge of the game, and can be borrow from there if needed for Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry or 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment But yet the Kick Six article was created 2 days after the Iron Bowl and we never questioned it's relevance? Stubbleboy 05:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per Bagumba's rationale immediately above. WikiProject College Football has evolved a very high standard for a stand-alone article about an individual regular season game, i.e., the game must have significance to the history, culture and lore of college football, the coverage must exceed routine post-game coverage that all modern Division I FBS games receive on the Sunday and Monday after the game is played per
  WP:NOTNEWS. We are an encyclopedia, not a sports magazine or alamanc. And we do provide an alternative venue for coverage of individual regular season games in the format of our individual team season articles, e.g., 2015 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team. Any non-duplicate content that should be merged to those two season articles (with proper attribution, if copy-pasted). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment This article 2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game was created 1 week after it occurred. It highlights the biggest college football comeback in NCAA Division 1-A history. The odds of Michigan State coming back to win that game were .03%, which were even greater odds then the result of this game. Stubbleboy 05:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a coincidence that virtually all of the long-time CFB and college sports editors involved in this discussion are saying the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment TO THE AFD CLOSER, I nominate that Dirtlawyer's !vote be struck, due to his personal attack referenced above. Thanks! Stubbleboy 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. Please see
  WP:NCR. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I believe the proper source of action is to first keep this article and then discuss merging with
  2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game. One of them should be kept, not both. But before the merge discussion can be completed, the AFD needs to be procedurally closed in my opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge is a possible outcome of any AfD, so I think it saves the overhead by just continuing with the discussion here, instead of closing, and rehashing similar discussion. Moreover, there are !votes to delete both articles (they are both in this nomination)—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This play (and game) is one of the biggest come-from-behind victories in college football and it is easy to find sources that prove its notability. [21][22][23] None of these sources are "routine coverage" and it seems like this has moved from a routine football game into the national headlines. I would agree that more detail would need to be added and the article might need to be renamed. Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of those are routine coverage. Routine coverage is defined as "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." – and those clearly fall into a cross between sports coverage and tabloid journalism. Aspirex (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree with much of what's been said already about these two articles. At this point, I think that merging the two articles into one about the game itself is the simplest way forward. The play itself doesn't have a name that I know of but is quickly becoming quite notable. Making the article about the game solves this problem and leaves room for a future article about the play to be created in the future. Adam Kriesberg (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your !vote a "keep" vote then? Most of the editors above want to delete both the articles, as they believe this game (and play) is non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:TOOSOON to even approximate a guess as to whether or not this game is going to have the sort of long-term effect or lasting notability it would need to sustain an individual game article. Let's wait at least 6 months, and revisit this at a later date. For right now, let's simply cover it in the context of the 2015 Michigan & Michigan State season articles, and monitor the situation for further developments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Shirt58, I need you to nominate Kick Six for violating NPA. And I'm going to block you for mentioning it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, are you sure you have the right discussion? What does the Kick Six article have to do with this AFD exactly, and who is Shirt58? Stubbleboy 02:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up at the nomination. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to an anchor point in
  WP:NOTNEWS covers this; we can't be making new articles every time there is a highlight reel finish. I would say that merging is the right option for two reasons: because the play will be notable in the context of the teams' rivalry, but cannot be said to be stand-alone notable, and; because there is no extra context or aftermath of note to bring the extent of the article beyond a single paragraph describing the play (cf. the 2013 Iron Bowl, which had immediate championship implications, etc.). Aspirex (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The Kick Six page was created days after the actual event, and it got the same amount of coverage this game is getting. I don't think it's too soon to determine whether or not it's notable. ~jcm (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please see
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please feel free to nominate "Kick Six" for an AfD discussion, too; it probably should be folded into the Iron Bowl rivalry game article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Notable game in the context of the michigan-michigan state rivalry, but not enough non-routine coverage to meet the
  WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A memorable play in a rivalry yes, but per
  WP:TOOSOON I must !vote delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment NFL.COM is now stating they believe the play may very well end up "the greatest college football play of all time." Stubbleboy 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete memorable but not notable by encyclopedic standards. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Michigan Michigan State football rivalry Regardless of how significant this game is in the UM-MSU rivalry is irrelevant towards the notability of this game for the purposes of its own article. This may become an important game in the history of college football and if it does then I would be happy to vote for this articles inclusion. But I doubt know how notable this game is by Wikipedia standards at this point. And, enough with the "Kick Six" argument that is simply
  Roy "Superman" Williams' game against Texas in 2001.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment

polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while an AFD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Thanks! Stubbleboy 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Stubbleboy, UCO2009bluejay has given a good explanation for their !vote, in what I would consider to be a well-worded opinion on the matter in order to further the discussion. It is AFD policy to bold your choice (keep, merge, delete, etc), so including that in their decision is not "just a vote." Primefac (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say he didn't have a good explanation? I was only trying to be helpful. He stated "I would be happy to vote for this articles inclusion", not "!vote", so I wasn't sure if he was aware of the policy. He could be new here for all I know. Thanks! Stubbleboy 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry section Notable games. I specifically bolded merge and not redirect because there are some good citations in this article that should be moved over to that section. Only redirecting to that section would be a disservice to the effort put into this article. Spidey104 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment surely the "Kick Six" is different in that it was the final game of the regular season and against the two-time defending champion. As great of a game it was, one is not nearly as sure of the national implications quite yet. Here's hoping it keeps Michigan hungry for the Buckeyes. Cake (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know @MisterCake:, you may just be right. As you can see, I have been trying to make as strong of a case as I can by responding to the majority of objections, I must also concede that your note does make sense. If Michigan State were to go on and defeat an unbeaten Ohio State, then won the Big Ten Conference Championship (Over who looks to be Iowa at the moment), then I'd say they have a very strong case for inclusion in the College Football Playoffs (having beaten what will mostly be two highly ranked opponents). Finally, if MS was to win both the Semi-Final and Championship, then clearly this article should exist without objection. Agreed? Stubbleboy 07:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The level of coverage in reliable sources should dictate if this article should exist now or in the future, not just because MSU theoretically won the national championship. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What x96 said. If it becomes a play which proves decisive for the Big Ten title, then I imagine it will get significant coverage, but the coverage is what dictates the article's passing GNG, not merely saying the conditions are in place for it. Otherwise BYU-Nebraska's hail mary and many other needless articles get created. Cake (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly an amazing play, but, imho, the most cogent arguments, aside from the nom's, were Bagumba's and Dirtlawyer1's. Weird crap happens all the time in games, even at the end of games. But definitely
  WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment One week later (10/24), ESPN has now released a new version of the original video including previously unseen reactions from those who took part in this historic play. Ironically enough, the article is entitled "The Michigan State miracle". Stubbleboy 03:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete. notable in other article as per above, contentious subject. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @

2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game? If so, how is it this a "contentious" subject? I find it rather odd that someone would recommend "strongly" deleting an article of what is arguably the greatest play of all time in the history of college football. Stubbleboy 17:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge / redirect to Notable games, per Spidey104. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Note to Closer The article has now been updated to read "the Michigan State Miracle is the nickname given to what is arguably the greatest play of all time in the history of college football." If we have other articles pertaining to certain football plays on Wikipedia, why would we exclude this one? A valid explanation from anyone participating in this discussion would be welcomed. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Comment: the creator of this article, Stubbleboy, has left notifications on the talk pages of about 40 Wikipedia editors that he has identified to be Michigan State alumni, soliciting comment here. It appears he made no effort to similarly solicit feedback from Michigan alumni or other editors with a general interest in college football. This seems like an obvious case of Wikipedia:Canvassing (scale, audience). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the user about canvassing, and I trust the closer wasn't going to merely count !votes anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I hope you also took the time to actually read the message I left on their talk pages before accusing me of any wrong doing.

Hello! There is an article that has been nominated for deletion regarding the Michigan State football team. I noticed you were an alumni, so I thought I would let you know in case you have any interest in participating with the discussion. If so, please just click on the Title as I have linked it straight to the page's deletion review. If you wish to see the article itself, it is titled Michigan State Miracle. Any thoughts, ideas, or edits that would help improve the page itself would also be appreciated!

I've actually been contributing to Wikipedia since it's creation in 2001, so I know the rules. All I did was inform Michigan State Alumni user's that there was a discussion they may be interested in taking part in. By no way was I ever trying to sway their personal opinion in one way or another. In fact, the first Michigan State alumni who did show up commented that he would not support the page. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Issue addressed on Bagumba's talk page. Now informing University of Michigan alumni as well of this discussion. Regardless of the school your userbox states you attended (which is completely unverifiable and irrelevant), it makes the event no less significant then it actually was. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was ill will on your part. The message was fine, the only concern was the limited distribution list, which you have addressed. No harm, no foul.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alumni is a plural. I don't know if that's a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbleboy, I did read your message, and you should note that I qualified my accusation of canvassing above on the dimensions of scale and audience, not message. Your message is indeed neutral, but the scale of your posting is excessive and your initial target audience was partisan. I'm not looking to make a big deal about this, but you should probably refrain from this sort of alumni-targeted posting, even if it's balanced, particularly on college sports topics. A quick review of Wikipedia:Canvassing would be helpful. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment

There is now a

It really is such an amazing play, isn't it? I had the pleasure of watching the game next to a Michigan Wolverines fan (I'm a fan of rival Ohio State). He jumped out of his seat and yelled "Mike...Mike.. No, Mike... Noooo!!" Then we just both sat there in silence for about 20 seconds. I was so kind to him, I looked over and said "I'm sorry bro, that is just horrible." I really felt bad for him, how sad, they had the game won if that punt was successful. Also, Shirt58, check THIS OUT if you have a chance. It's the Wiki2 version of the article, and I think it looks incredible. Cheers! Stubbleboy 18:26, 27 October 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.