Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 August	16 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Valentin Amelin

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

Amelin plays for an amateur team and thus does not meet the notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:FPL as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Allen

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

The league Allen plays in is only semi-pro, thus he does not meet the notability guidelines for football players. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As stated above, definitely fails
talk 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disk Expert

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

Doesn't seem to be covered in sufficient independent sources. Of the five sources currently listed, three don't mention the product, one is a press release, and one is the company's site. Looking further I can find some mentions online and reviews in one or two, but nothing substantial that can establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. (Part of a cluster of spam-magnet articles for non-notable OS X software, too.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not covered in the independent sources. --
talk 18:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Page's current references are poor. Not much else out there detailing the software. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Learn These Words First

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

Appears to fail

WP:NBOOK. Sources in the article reference general facts about language and vocabulary. Only reference I could find online was on a Duolingo forum discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, TonyBallioni. The "Learn These Words First" dictionary was formerly called the "NSM+LDOCE" dictionary, so it's easier to find notable references to it under that name, for example:

NSM + LDOCE: A Non-Circular Dictionary of English http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/226 which covers the NSM+LDOCE dictionary in depth.

Common language of all people: The innate language of thought http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0032946011040065 which includes an appendix discussing the applications of the NSM+LDOCE dictionary.

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

The significance/notability of the dictionary is its approach to circular definitions: how they are avoided by splitting the defining vocabulary into multiple layers, where words in each layer are defined using only the words in the previous layers. The article needs work to make that clearer. First attempt to create a page -- should I have created some kind of draft page first and worked on it there? Lexyacc (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Tokoyogirl's comment below. I don't think this is notable, but it might be possible to establish notability for the creator if you could show multiple, reliable, third party sources mentioning him and his work. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable website. Author's edits on other pages seem mostly to be spam links to it. Blythwood (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Blythwood. I was attempting to update a few other Wikipedia articles to include recent research on defining vocabularies in learner's dictionaries (namely multi-layer approach to avoiding circular definitions). I wanted to point to the NSM+LDOCE / Learn These Words First dictionary as a good example of this, so adding a page about the dictionary seemed like a good approach, instead of just naming it in several articles. What do you think? Lexyacc (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi,

Shawn in Montreal. Whoops, I mistakenly deleted two of your comments, thinking they were duplicates. (They have been restored.) Now it makes me wonder: do I need to respond to comments in all three of those discussions? Lexyacc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (I now see it auto-magically updates on all those pages.)[reply

]

This article needs a lot of work to establish that it's notable. As far as the website goes, it looks like it was created in 2014 and there's nothing to tie it to the name NSM+LDOCE other than the website creator's name, as this page says that it's based on the NSM+LDOCE, which is used for part of the website's educational plan, ie, the "34 middle layers". Now what I'd personally suggest here is that unless sourcing can be shown that establishes the website and lesson plan as a whole is notable, that you look into creating a page for the website and NSM+LDOCE's creator, David Bullock. (Note that one of the above sources given is by Bullock himself, so it'd be considered primary regardless of who published it.) That would potentially be far easier to create and assert notability for, if Bullock's work is frequently cited enough for him to be considered a notable academic/professor. It's really tough to assert notability for websites, as few gain the type of coverage needed to pass NWEB.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 11:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi,

Tokyogirl79. In editing several other articles, I found myself repeatedly adding the same material about (1) multi-layer defining vocabulary structure, (2) NSM+LDOCE as the best academic reference, and (3) Learn These Words First as a public website where people could see the concept at work (instead of just reading about it). It would be nice to have an article to point to from other articles (so I could streamline some of my redundant edits). Would it make sense to create a more notable article by merging these three related concepts into one article? Lexyacc (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Improved article - The latest version attempts to clarify notability by improving references and merging three related concepts (Learn These Words First dictionary, multi-layer structure, NSM+LDOCE research) organized under different subheadings. What do you think? Lexyacc (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Create new article? - Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I am thinking the focus of the article should really be about the "Multi-layer dictionary" concept, rather than a particular example (Learn These Words First / NSM+LDOCE). In my sandbox, I have been working on rewriting the article with that focus. Would that help notability? I'd still like to mention a concrete example in the article to help explain and clarify the concept. Should I go ahead and create a "Multi-layer dictionary" article and submit it as a draft? Or is there some other procedure I should follow? Lexyacc (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see anything notable here or a way to bring this article to notability even. --
talk 18:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in both the second and third tiers of Italian football and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Danilo Alessandro

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

Alessandro has never played in the top level league in Italy. To be notable a footballer has to have played in the top level league in their country. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
fully professional Leagues as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject passes
HERE. There is no mention in that guideline of playing in the top level league in their country. Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Aleksei Andreyevich Alekseyev

)

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

Alekseyev does not pass the notability requirements for footballers. The team he plays with is part of a league that is only semi-professional. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
fully Professional League in Russia before playing in Latvia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Madjid Albry

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

The league that Albry plays in is 6th tier in the German football system. To be notable a person has to play in the top tier football league in the country in which they play. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
fully professional league as per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sergei Alborov

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

Alborov is part of the 2nd league is Russia. A person to be default notable has to be a player for the top fully professional league in a system. No matter how professional a lower ranked league is, playing below the top level in a system does not confer default notability on a person and the coverage here is not enough to pass the GNG John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Alaska

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

Alaska is a musician who does not pass the notability guidelines for musicians. The sources used in the article are overwhelmingly not reliable ones. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 23:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - As stated above, notability is lacking and there is no coverage in
talk 18:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable musician and there is a lack of coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular (talk) 02:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers (video game)

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

Non-notable video game. This video game was never actually released.

talk) 23:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: It was covered by numerous reliable sources. Before its unofficial reveal.[2][3]. After the reveal: [4][5][6]. There are way more than the sources I have just listed.
talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 06:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. That it wasn't released doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about it (see Category:Cancelled video games for instance). Other sources: EW, Engadget, Kotaku. It received attention from reliable sources, that is the reason why there's an article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There may be sources on the subject "out there", but there are virtually none in the article itself. Only two references, and one of them says absolutely nothing about the article subject and is simply thrown in there as a "by the way, this other Avengers game is coming out." At this point I think WP: Blow it up and start over makes more sense than vaguely hoping that someone will put in the huge amount of editing needed to get the article up to notability standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cancelled games are as eligible as any other for an article, and numerous RSes demonstrably exist for this one. No reason to delete. Phediuk (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the theoretical existence of good reliable sources is meaningless so long as there are none within the article. If the sources AdrianGamer and Sotermans have listed really contain information that can be used in the article, then why is no one adding them to the article? See WP: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your suggesting that the three directly linked sources somehow become theoretical solely due to the fact that they were presented here than directly in the article that claim has no merit since by presenting them they are by definition not theoretical. AFD is also not cleanup.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources provided by AdrianGamer above. Could use some cleanup, sure, but not nearly bad enough for a
WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - There is nothing requiring cancelled video games not be listed in the encyclopedia, especially if there is reliable sources that establish
talk 18:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in multiple fully professional leagues and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Uğur Albayrak

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

If I am following the various links provided in the article correctly, Albayrak plays for a team that is part of an amature legue. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes
fully professional league. In his case, the 2. Bundesliga, 3. Liga and North American Soccer League. Struway2 (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Dmitry Alayev

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

Alayev played in the 2nd level football league, to be notable he would have had to compete in the top level league John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:FPL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in both the first and second tiers of Spanish football and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented Fenix down (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Javier Álamo Cruz

)

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

Cruz is player in the 2nd level football league in Spain. He would have to be a player in the 1st level league to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per this has played in both the 1st and 2nd divisions in Spain which are both
WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in the
WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - clearly passes
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as he appears to pass the
WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Wrong Xfd. Already at Rfd as the nominator states.. (

talk) 23:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Act I: Eternal Sunshine (the pledge)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_12#Act_I:_Eternal_Sunshine_.28the_pledge.29, It was decided it would be deleted but it wasnt for unknown reasons. Iazyges (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it turns out I missread it, it has not been decided, I was reading the one under it that was saying it should be deleted, I messed up bad, do I blank this section? Iazyges (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akburç

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

While Akburc has some sort of affiliation with a top league team in Turkey, the article provides no evidence he has ever actually played in a regular game for that team, and so no indication that Akburc passes the notability guidelines for footballers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
talk 18:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milad Akbari

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

Akbari is part of the second level football league in Iran. He would need to be part of the first level one to be default notable, but he is not, and there is nothing else to suggest he is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
talk 18:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has played in at least one fully professional league and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented, I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding of NFOOTY here and there is no need to keep all these AfDs open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Kemal Akbaba

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

Akbaba plays in the Turkish 3rd league, which according to our article on it is actually the 4th level pro league in Turkey. Only those who play for top level, fully pro leagues in a country are default notable. He falls way below this standard. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:Footy. Has played in Süper Lig per this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I just wanted to add, as the one responsible for creating the page - I created the page back when he was playing for a top tier team in Turkey, Gençlerbirliği. It seems since then his career status has taken a downturn. It seems he's now playing with an Amateur level team (5th tier), Edirnespor. If the rules are the page stays due to prior high level exposure, all good, but I understand people questioning the status. I'll seek to update the page with the info I have: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/kemal-akbaba/profil/spieler/51592 Xfiles82 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject has received multiple caps at senior international level and so clearly meets

the subject-specific guideline. Closing as there is no reasonable chance of suitable delete arguments being presented Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hadisi Aengari

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for football players since the league he plays in is only semi-professional. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; Has played for a national team 15 times so clearly meets
WP:NFOOTY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Yellow Dingo (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played for the Solomon Islands National team per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, clearly passes
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Leona Group

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

Altho there are numerous (mostly negative) articles about schools operated by this company, I find nothing on the company itself. Indeed even the reference on the article is not discussion in detail but passing mention of two of their schools in a larger article about charter schools. As this company is not itself a school,

CORP. John from Idegon (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It's been some time since I worked on this article, but it sure looks like they're up to something in Michigan, even if they're not up to par. They were selected to run the Highland Park, Michigan school district in 2012 when a state emergency manager ordered it chartered — and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy still calls the district "troubled", and apparently they fired back at a 2013 report that accused their schools of being underperforming. The New York Times labeled them the operator of "some of the worst performing schools in Detroit".
t • c) 23:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep -- the section "Criticism and school performance" is well sourced and this is information that cannot be found elsewhere on the company's website. The tone is neutral and sourcing is otherwise reasonable to pass GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divinity Angels of Rock

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

Doesn't satisfy

WP:BAND - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band exists but I don't see any substantial coverage out there. ---Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Dee (radio host)

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

Doesn't satisfy

WP:BIO - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, fails
talk 18:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teyana Taylor discography#EPs. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cassette Tape 1994

)

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

Doesn't satisfy

WP:NALBUM - lacks coverage in reliable sources — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teyana Taylor discography#EPs. Barely anything here is sourced, the singles don't seem to exist, and the coverage that does exist (similar items from Fader, Complex, and Vibe) is not sufficient to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teyana Taylor discography#EPs per Michig.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF/religious stations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As with

reliable sources anymore — one of these could now stop operating at absolutely any time without Wikipedia having any way to verify that, because the cessation isn't going to be announced by the CRTC in a public release and there's virtually never any substantive coverage anywhere else. Typically, these stations are licensed to churches, and exist primarily to broadcast religious services so that elderly shut-ins who can't physically get to the church can "attend" mass from home — but they otherwise remain silent when there isn't actually a mass on, meaning they're of no substantive public interest otherwise. And if a station's status as still active or not is unverifiable to us, then we can't keep an article about it anymore either. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; I was considering a bulk nomination of these low-power religious stations myself, but didn't get around to it. It has been suggested that
unverifiable at this point. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Although VF8027 was incorporated in this nomination, it now has two AfD tags on it because it already has an AfD nomination on its own; this may need to be fixed. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, in my middle-aged premature dementia I completely overlooked that I'd already nominated that one separately yesterday. I've removed it from this batch and stripped the second AFD template. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat and Wcquidditch: Are Canadian VF stations like our translators here in the US? If so, the pages could all be redirected to their parent station with the VF stations in a {{RadioTranslators}} template. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25 on August 16, 2016 (UTC)

No, they aren't. This call sign format just denotes that the transmitter is very low power; translators can sometimes be named this way in small villages where they only need VF-level wattage to cover everyone, but so can very low power stations originating non-commercial programming (TIS, weather, mass-for-shut-ins, etc.) under our equivalent to US

Part 15 rules, and the latter is what these are. The unusual call sign format only announces the strength of the signal, not whether the transmitter is broadcasting original content or just repeating another station. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, gotcha. I thought those were Canada's answer to our translators and the callsign was just Canada's answer to our W201AA type calls. But if they are the equivalent of our Part 15's, then yeah, non-notable. I think Part 15's are even mentioned in NMEDIA. With that, Delete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:57 on August 17, 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Just for future reference, there's no absolutely foolproof way to identify a translator/rebroadcaster in Canada just by its call sign alone, as any call sign format that can be held by a translator station can also be held by an originating one as well. Even the one call sign format that theoretically is uniquely identifying of a translator, the existing call sign of another station with an extra numeric suffix attached to it (e.g. CXXX-FM-2), also has a couple of oddball exceptions where a onetime translator later became a real originating station in its own right without actually changing its original call sign — so even the genuine "rebroadcaster" class of call signs still isn't a fully reliable flag. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - For the same reasons as stated above, fails multiple guidelines including
talk 18:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amarendra Sahu

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

The references are all on the company, not him. Part of a promotional effort--see adjacent afd on the company. Even if the company article is kept, this isn't even worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the biography doesn't have significant importance. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a non notable businessman. Company may not be notable either; but the subject appears even less notable than the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed that the businessman is not notable. --
talk 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails GNG. Not notable businessman. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Louisiana USA. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dupont

)

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

Dupont was Miss Louisiana USA and Miss Louisiana. However neither of these is enough to be notable. When we have articles with statements like "Jennifer was recently married", which lack even a vague sense of time, we are dealing with people who are just marginally notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Louisiana USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NA1000. BLP-1E. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Louisiana. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Nelson

)

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

Nelson is really only notable for being Miss Louisiana in 2015. Her previous losses is state competitions do not come anywhere close to notability. Her work as an actress at a theatre in Lousiana does not, nor does her being a party princess for hire. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Louisiana as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Louisiana. BLP-1E, at best. No harm will be done by deletion since this material can be userfied in the event that notability guidelines change. Project-level discussions have no direct effect on notability rules. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 15:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

I'm voting Delete as a BLP for a non-notable person is potential invasion of privacy and may be subject to vandalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Washington. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kailee Dunn

)

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

Dunn is only noted for being Miss Washington. The coverage of this all tends to be very local. It is basically one event, and no reason to see her as permanently notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Washington as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2014 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Washington. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Almon

)

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

Almon is notable only for being Miss Washington. Although there are lots of sources, it is mainly several from a local paper in Yakima and other equally local sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Washington as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2013 winner.North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Northamerica1000.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect as there's nothing at all close for actuslly establishing her own independent notability thus there's nothing persuasively convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per
talk 19:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Wyoming. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Allen

)

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

Allen was Miss Wyoming. That is the only thing she has done that has caused her to get any attention. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wyoming as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2014 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Camper

)

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

Camper is really only notable for being Miss Alabama, and that is not enough to be notable. Her work as director of continuing education at a community college is not at the level to be notable. The Point of Lights Foundation Award also does not seem to be on a level for her to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PSEUDO biography. Coverage is trivial and insufficient for a bio article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2004 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Jones

)

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

Jones was a local news reporter and Miss Alabama. Miss Alabama is not enough to make her notable, and her local reporting career is not enough to propel her to notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there, in part as the 2005 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes harm will be done by closing this page as keep. Pages should only be closed keep if it is concluded that the subject actually is notable, especially when the subject is a living person. Exposing non-notable living people to having an article in Wikipedia can create great harm. Beyond this, a small project related to beauty pageants is not at all the right place to discuss the notability issues. It is this type of parochialism that keeps up the over abundance of articles on non-notable people in Wikipedia. Lastly, a discussion that might result in rules that create some sort of guidelines actually is reason to delete. It is clear that few people advocate for the notion that all state beauty pageant winners are notable. There is no harm in deleting the article because it clearly does not meet our guidelines at present. Nominating articles for deletion is a time consuming process, and thousands of articles that come no where near meeting notability guidelines nonetheless exist, sometimes for over a decade, because it is so much easier to create than to delete an article. Keeping articles on merely procedural grounds is not a wise idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as none of thid amounts to the needed independent notability, simply having a few pageant shows is not enough. SwisterTwister talk 15:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Langley (Miss Alabama)

)

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

Langley is really only notable for being Miss Alabama and that is not enough on its own to make someone notable. Langley has been a motivational speaker and such, but there is no indication that any of these activities are at a level to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2007 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Tapley

)

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

Tapley is really only notable for being Miss Alabama. As much as I wish the one article on her being about to graduate from medical school were enough to establish her notability, I just do not think it cuts it. If this is redirected to the Miss Alabama page, I think we could make sure to include a mention that she is a medical doctor. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2008 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 18:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep' as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Piacentini

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

No independent refs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:Academics to correct this problem, and will update this section as I find more sources. I appreciate the time taken to look at the article! Ongmianli (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Doc James:, do take a look at the John Piacentini article. I'd love your comments on further improving its notability. Appreciate it! Ongmianli (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usual source for academics seems to be sufficient here, unless it is normal for non-notable clinical psychologists to have received so many thousands of citations to their works. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of major professional societies). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Google Scholar estimates his h-index as 60 [7], which is sufficient to meet
WP:PROF. Also president elect/past president of national societies. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

need to look further, but, Espresso Addict a raw h- index is never an argument for either keeping or deleting. It depends on the subject field, and also on whether there were any really heavily cited articles. h-index cannot distinguish between someone with a large deal of not-very-important work, and someone who has made major contributions. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was pretty much intended as a late-night shorthand for "keep per everyone above me". Top five cited papers in GS are 1721, 721, 681, 442, 415, and there are around 37 papers with 100 or more citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking further, though the first, third and fourth articles in GS are whee he is one of the authors of a very large multi-authored study, there are at least 10 papers where he was one of the two or three authors of a paper that had over 200 references. This is sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stunning cites in GS pass
WP:Prof by miles. Nominator's rationale is hard to understand. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus-class corvette

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

This topic fails to establish notability. The details here really don't even need to be merged. They're overall irrelevant to general encyclopedic coverage, so Wikia is the only place the topic should be mentioned. TTN (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5, where it is listed. This fictional element never appeared in any of the shows or TV movies, to the best of my recollection, but may have been mentioned in passing. There is no need for a merge; the coverage at the target is sufficient as is. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of starships in Babylon 5 like mentioned above. Not enough for its own article and the List page already has a standard of describing the ships in detail. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Syed Hasan (writer)

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

Notability, lack of secondary references. Newusers112 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability. And my searches have been fruitless, even when I used the quite unique name of his university - Patna - as a keyword along with his name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was recently moved from userspace to main space by an editor SwisterTwister, who regularly moves large numbers of articles into main space far too rapidly to have evaluated them, and that, in this particular case, the article was moved although it had been recently rejected by a fellow editor for lack of reliable, secondary sources, which were not provided before SwisterTwister approved it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with this editor that has been repeatedly discussed, but nothing is ever done about such obviously disruptive behaviour. The tendency to allow such editors to continue when their judgement is no better than random is one of the reasons why I decided several years ago not to use a registered id for editing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the initial draft which was rejected and the draft which got approved are 2 completely different stories. the later is properly sourced, and the references are provided for almost every sentence and is 95 percent without any primary sources unlike the first draft which had almost no references.

Secondly, instead of searching google for the same we can check those references. the reason I don't suggest google search of his name is because the name of the subject is very common and mostly spelled differently and in other languages as well and would mostly be fruitless as countless other people who are prominent are there by his name, wiki itself has 9 people by his name. just because google can't figure it out, doesn't mean the person is not notable. to be in a notable personality according to wiki policy is

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. which he did and is properly sourced by secondary sources.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

the article has secondary sources of his books and awards which itself is a proof of his prominence. if still the secondary references aren't enough for the community to get this approved, I am sure I can add other references as well.Sfaafsar (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting I revisited the sources. they are primary; or prizes given by the Ministry he works for - no evidence brought of notability of these prizes; he may be name-checked somewhere in source #6; #7 lists him among student scholarship recipients (hey! I had a scholarship when I was a student, too); #8 did not bring his name up, so I tyoed it into the search box that did come up and got this [8], I don't read Urdu; #9 is the only usable source, a book review in an academic journal of a book that he edited. This does not suffice. #10 is a library catalogue listing, but publishing a book is not suffice. The book has to be reviewed/written up in a RS. I deny the allegation that I was unaware that the page had been revised before SwisterTwister approved it for mainspace. I do not accuse fellow editors of carelessness lightly. The problem I could see then and still see now is that the sources are not valid. (unless RS can be brought) This article should not have been approved for mainspace. And should not be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question By chance can anyone identify a companion entry in any other language that might further inform us? I feel like I don't have the language skills or the context necessary to assess; it's not at all implausible to me that either some of these awards or even being a chair of a department is enough for
WP:BASIC. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better if this article had been left in userspace and discussed properly there rather than being moved prematurely to mainspace where it becomes subject to this adversarial process. It is quite possible that the subject, as a university head of department, is notable, but that hasn't been demonstrated yet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we have sufficient evidence to decide, and I think it would not be a good idea to delete, because someone in this position is likely to be notable . (And I do not se the point of keeping it in userspace where nobody who has the necessary background is likely to see it or work on it. The place where articles get improved is mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the notability DGG is seeing. The claims made on the page are a small number of publications and a teaching job at a university. Many academics are not notable; many full professors are not notable. If it turns out that this one, is, we can recreate the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning for saying that this would have been better left in user space was that while the "articles for creation" process was still going on there would have been a better opportunity to ask the article creator, who is probably better placed that most of us to do so, to find better sources. Now that the article is undergoing the adversarial AfD process, which, like it or not, is a
battleground, it is less likely that we will get friendly cooperation to improve the chances of keeping and improving it. We are where we are, so I certainly wouldn't advocate returning it to user space. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I wavered on this, because I share DGG's view about the likely notability of the subject, and that keeping it in mainspace is the best way to encourage the needed work on it--but I'm also wary about an entry that has limited sources, a variety of language challenges (such as the numerous different transliterations of the subject's name, plus a different scholar in the same field with a virtually-matching name), and essentially only one editor currently working to interpret those, with that editor being quite new to Wikipedia and still learning the intricacies of how WP uses sources (as am I for that matter). That could add up to an entry that diverges from
WP:WHYN's important guidance that multiple secondary sources are necessary "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." Being certain of not misleading readers about something like the neutrality of an article is a higher priority to me than growing the encyclopedia. But after consideration, I believe the entry's claims (in the present draft--the previous one was a different story) are sufficiently limited that the clean-up tags suffice to warn readers about what may be the entry's present limitations; it does not need to be deleted to protect readers, and keeping it may encourage expansion of a valuable resource. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus after relisting appears to be that the article is sufficiently covered in depth. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BuddyPress

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

I still confirm my removed PROD; my analysis of the now added sourced are 1 PR and the the other 2 are simply a few unconvincing paragraphs; there's still no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes
available sources. Entire books, book chapters and scholarly sources are devoted to the topic. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

Sabin-Wilson, L. (2010). BuddyPress For Dummies. For Dummies.
ISBN 978-0-470-56801-9
. 314 pages.

Lister, T. (2013). BuddyPress Theme Development.
ISBN 978-1-78328-162-6
. 130 pages.

Hedengren, T.D. (2011). "Chapter 10". Smashing WordPress Themes: Making WordPress Beautiful. Smashing Magazine Book Series. Wiley.
ISBN 978-0-470-97024-9
.

"Blogging in the Classroom: Using WordPress Blogs with BuddyPress Plugin as a Learning Tool". Journal of Advertising Education. August 7, 2016. pp. 5–17. Retrieved August 7, 2016.
Siegler, MG (April 30, 2009). "BuddyPress Launches: May A Thousand Social Networks Bloom (Someday)". TechCrunch. Retrieved August 7, 2016.
Eldon, Eric (April 30, 2009). "WordPress's BuddyPress is the web's social network in a box". VentureBeat. Retrieved August 7, 2016.
"14+ Best Buddypress Themes For 2016 - Top Social Network Themes". The Jerusalem Post. August 7, 2016. Retrieved August 7, 2016.
Jones, K.M.L.; Farrington, P.A. (2013). Learning from Libraries that Use WordPress: Content-management System Best Practices and Case Studies. American Library Association. pp. 95–99.
ISBN 978-0-8389-1162-4
.

Santos (2014). Social networks with BuddyPress. pp. 182–183.
S2CID 34498576. Retrieved August 7, 2016. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help
)

Team, Online Services (May 15, 2015). "WordPress multi-user: BuddyPress and beyond". University of Lincoln, The Lincoln Repository. Retrieved August 7, 2016.
Jones, Kyle (2011). "Buddypress and higher education." Library Technology Reports/Gale. 47.3.

Comment about these sources - Analyzing these listed sources have journals, which is perhaps something, but I'm still not seeing enough as some of this is still thin, especially since we're not sure about the needed depth, some of the last sources, I will note, are simply interviews. SwisterTwister talk 00:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Automattic as wholly unremarkable on its own; "further reading" sources are mostly fluff. Coverage is not there to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. I trimmed the article by removing "product brochure" content and uncited claims, and there's just nothing there. Add: the Automattic article appears to have spawned sub-articles on every WordPress plug-in; I think most of them can be consolidated there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources I have provided herein consist of
WP:GNG. Furthermore, the sources are certainly not "fluff" whatsoever. Rather, they are quite detailed and thorough. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This may be good content for Automattic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided by Northamerica1000 seem to estabilish notability for this article. Pavlor (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment simply seems to be based from what the sources may seem to be like at first time, I wonder if they have simply ignored what I said above and chose to consider it notable simply by their own choices. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I´m a little bit puzzled here. I just started to take part on the AfD stuff, but I see similar patterns in various discussions: the same editors support delete in cases, where other editors (usually also repeating names) think notability is proven. Maybe never-ending inclusionists vs deletionists dispute? I´m probably more on the "inclusionist" side, because I think sources are sufficient to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: and for other reasons, such as the fact that we need a larger labor force (of editors). I hope that you will join us. If you do, it's useful to know that what we truly need are more editors like Northamerica1000, who search out and bring sources to the debate. Sources weigh far more than opinion in these discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor.E.M.Gregory, I do not think it is helpful to talk about a inclusionist versus a deletionist "side" or to hope that a person joins one party or another. Each article depends on the individual circumstances, and there are many to take into account, besides notability . Even with notability, almost everyone here tends to be more skeptical of particular types of articles, and more willing to accept others. It will always be a matter of degrees, which articles are worth fixing, and no matte where one sets the boundary, there will always be a fuzzy zone about what articles will be harmful to an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources brought by User:Northamerica1000. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. obviously per the sources provided above. The nominator's dismissal of a whole book from an independent academic publisher about this topic as not demonstrating notabilty is, quite obviously, gross incompetence. Why does the English Wikipedia still allow such a grossly incompetent editor to have such an influence over article deletion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Porter

)

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

Porter is only notable for being Miss Alabama. WInning a state Miss title is not enough on its own to make someone notable John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2011 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as not at all independently notable for her own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 15:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Crosby

)

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

Crosby is only marginally known for being Miss Alabama 2004. She is a lawyer, but not at a level to maker her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2003 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
talk 19:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article makes no assertion of notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiConference North America 2016

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

Doesn't meet GNG, mostly crystal ball at this point. Keilana (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluehand

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

Sources used given in this article are all primary. In my brief search I could not find anything that would signal notability. Sjrct (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Seems the subject is notable but lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable. All sources are
WP:SELFPUB. --Drm310 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as A7; "organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", no indication that it's anything more than a group of Twitter users. Not seeing any press coverage. I've cut the interpretative and
McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No RS, no notability. I agree that A7 also applies, but perhaps better to let this run its course so that next time this is created, we can simply G4 it. --Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not being notable at all, with no references in any
independent sources. Also comments like "...to combat the racism, Islamophobia and Anti Semitism of the #Bluehand group." are utterly not neutral at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No
talk 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer Trail (tour)

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

See

X2, a speedy deletion criterion for these raw machine translations, which User:DGG declined. So now we're stuck with a raw machine translation in the mainspace which is clearly counter-policy. Even if we do need an article about this cultural tour (and I take no position on that point), this machine translation is not a useful step towards that article. Delete. —S Marshall T/C 18:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Even as first entered here, this was readable. By the time I saw it, it was no longer a poor quality machine translation. There were still some unidiomatic construction and a few words were still in French. I fixed that. It took about five minutes. The only thing it still needs is the addition of some English language references to supplement the French ones. S Marshall, your expectations for the quality of English prose do not seem realistic. Anyone not liking the quality of my results is welcome to improve it. There are certainly articles to which X1 is applicable, and I have deleted one or two, but this was never one of them. Indeed, if the first version of this was a machine translation the quality of the program is remarkably high, much more than I would have expected. If X1 is going to be used in this altogether inappropriate manner, it should be removed from the criteria. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, DGG, you're fundamentally misunderstanding my case. The problem is not with the quality of the English prose, but with the fact that machine translations are unreliable. There are various circumstances in which the translation software can fail to parse negative sentences correctly, thereby inadvertently reversing the meaning of the source text. If a native English speaker then cleans up the prose, then that cloaks the problem but it doesn't actually solve it unless they can read the original and confirm that it's correct. How's your French?—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

My French is okay and it looks okayish... more importantly, there's an official English website official text that anyone can easily check it against, for
talk) 19:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, it's probably okay-ish. I mean, it's got confused about vingtaine and it's run into the usual machine translation problems with depuis, but otherwise it isn't horrible. French is a relatively easy case because there are lots of native English speakers who know it. This project is also dealing with some considerably more obscure tongues where we really can't check, and what I'm trying to establish is the principle that X2 is enforced even when the English "translation" is plausible.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay. Well, with all due respect I for one don't see an argument to delete this article. But I wasn't aware there was such a backlog.
talk) 19:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Yup, the backlog is these 3,602 articles. I see you speak French... fancy checking one or two? :D—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree with your assertion that speedy can be used to delete readily improvable articles. It was intended for the utter junk that came from one or two particular extremely low quality attempts to use the very inadequate WP translation function and similar material not worth the effort. The real problem with the less known languages is that Google Translate is almost useless with most of them, so the quality of the input is most likely to really be not worth the effort. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look at the first 5 French articles I could find in the backlog they all seemed basically okay. As the nominator acknowledges, French isn't really main problem, here. I daresay
  talk) 20:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Also, >3600 isn't even a particularly big backlog, as far as things go here.
    talk) 20:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Speedy keep per above and
talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Article has been significantly improved since nomination and so complaints about this article have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved to a proper standard of english and is reliably sourced Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen that as well as being a machine translation, it's also a copyvio. The original fr.wiki version is a close paraphrase of this source, which is why our now-fixed-up machine translation is so similar to the English version of this, er, "cultural tour"'s website. Which is why we have the names of "Production Team" serving no encyclopaedic purpose at the foot of the article.—S Marshall T/C 14:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been improved and should remain on the encyclopedia as it meets all the guidelines. --
talk 19:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Wyoming USA. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin George

)

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

George is really only known because she was Miss Wyoming USA. Her television apparences are extremly minor, and not enough for notability. We have had many discussions on this issue, and the general consensus seems to be that winners of state Miss USA competitions are not notable for such alone, and that there needs to be a strong additional reason to have the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per
WP:BIO1E and due to failing GNG. No signs of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Wyoming USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2006 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect makes the most sense to me. People could search for her and it would be appropriate for them to go to the article on the pagent. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Heliopolis

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

Fails

talk) 17:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete An individual location of a hotel chain. The article is highly promotional and makes no claim of notability with only a single primary reference given. Concur with nom, fails general notability. Searching finds numerous hits in the expected travel-related websites but no significant secondary coverage. MB 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG now there are many hotels in Cairo .Now not clear why this particular hotel is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No
talk 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VF/TIS stations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Cleanup of various old lingering articles about radio stations that are not compliant with Wikipedia's contemporary rules about the notability of radio stations. These were acceptable at the time they were created, but

verify that in order to keep the article current and accurate, because they have no obligation to inform the CRTC that they've ceased broadcasting and they're rarely if ever the subject of any significant coverage anywhere else. So, again, they were acceptable at the time — but under the rules that pertain now, they aren't anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these appear to be individually notable on their own. No chance of ever growing past a sub-stub. -- œ^™ 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; there is
unverifiable. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all - No
talk 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neeraj Pandey. MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crack (film)

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

Today it was announced that this movie might be made. Fails notability of movies. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. This was announced, but it's far far
(｡◕‿◕｡) 02:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect - per
WP:NFF for now to either director of the actor's page. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 05:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Definitely
talk 19:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joep Gommers

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

Procedural nomination. Legitimately declined A7 keeps being restored. Adam9007 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable security professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this should've been PRODed first, nothing at all actually convincing or substantial. SwisterTwister talk 22:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this fails
talk 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails GNG. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The soft redirect to Wiktionary proposal has not received support thus not going for that here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plash

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

Fails

WP:GNG, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This really must go as there's no good reason at all for its continued inclusion. HOWEVER rather than delete revert to situation as ay April 4, 2011 - soft redirect to wiktionary. S a g a C i t y (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not my field, but I cannot find anything that constitutes substantive coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage, and previous afd had no keep votes or additional sources provided. Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Software does not have enough coverage to warrant an article. --
talk 19:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Monkey Songs

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

Some sources exist (e.g. [9], [10]), but this company falls short of meeting

WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is linked to the See Monkey Do Monkey record label, so conceivably the two articles could be merged. However, I'm not sure the latter article passes notability either. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find anything beyond what the nominator describes: this fails GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails GNG and CorpDepth. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
talk 19:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zed Gossip

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

Does not meet

WP:WEBCRIT, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if they do risk their lives in search of celebrity gossip, like nom I could find no coverage. Yvarta (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails
WP:WEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. --
talk 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Slash-in-the-Box

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

Does not meet

other evidence of notability for films, per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really wasn't expecting to find much of anything, as short films usually get the short end of the stick, pun intended. It looks like it gained some attention when it released and some additional attention once it got snapped up to be part of a horror anthology film in 2013. The coverage isn't the most overwhelmingly strong, but it did get just enough to where I'd say it could be kept. If we had an article for the anthology film I might have argued for a redirect, but we don't and there's just enough here to wobble by NFILM.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough information to remain. It's an interesting subject to many, and the writer/director has a strong history. It appears to meet the necessary guidelines. FairlySavvy 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairlySavvy (talk • contribs)
Keep - As
talk 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sippy Gill

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

Does not meet

WP:NACTOR, per several source searches. Coverage found is insufficient to meet notability guidelines (e.g. [11], [12]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --
talk 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universities in U.S. with Information Systems ABET Accreditation

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

Does not meet

WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.
Talkback) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet
talk 19:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Chennai

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

Does not meet

WP:LISTN because the topic has not been discussed as a group or set by reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- only one song has an article. Neither has the topic been a subject of independent scholarly inquiry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator's comment on
WP:LISTN. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. --
talk 19:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CactusSoft

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

References are just mentions on lists of derived from company sites DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Cactussoft page does't differ from other belarusian software companies pages. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belitsoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eva-loran (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC) — Eva-loran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as entirely PR, from the clients to the verification and awards, the fact there's no substance and this is then advertorial is altogether overwhelmingly enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 09:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete standard searches did not reveal enough independent coverage in reliable sources to meet company notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable software company. Independent coverage is not there to meet GNG and COPRDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent coverage or RS. --
talk 19:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nute

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

A former minor league professional baseball player who founded a non notable ministry... struggling to see how this passes

WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability case looks extremely weak. Baseball game recaps that don't cover the subject in sufficient detail, sources from his own website, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor league baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --
talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BaySand

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

Declined

WP:CORP notability level. Current refs are mostly press releases/primary sources. Standard searches didn't reveal much else. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At first glance the sources appear to be news articles, but they're all press releases or links to BaySand's website, which don't fulfill
WP:SELFPUB. Sunmist (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no independent indication of notability.
talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW Delete and this is honestly A7 and G11 material. SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from independent source like EETimes & EETimes Japan has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpteoh (talk • contribs) 02:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The additional sources that you added were press releases and an article that didn't mention the company. shoy (reactions) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "didn't mention the company"??, please see links from electronicsweekly.com, electronics-eetimes.com, silicontap.com, eetimes.jp, eetimes.com, news article about 3rd parties (Toshiba, EnSilica) and Baysand
Delete -- an advertorial article that lacks sufficient RS to sustain an encyclopedia entry. My searches do not reveal anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely an advert article and appears to be only press releases. --
talk 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- Please refer to the press release by 3rd parties and independent party like eetimes.com eetimes.jp

I was getting ready to close this per SNOW (well, it's running out of time anyway), but the most recent editor is correct: the company is mentioned here and here, and these things do not appear to be press releases. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the first article contains a trivial mention: "FFSA – Fit Fast Stuctured Array is astructured array custom vehicle that incorporates technology from BaySand..." (and that's it). The second article appears to be a reprinted press release about a partnership: "EnSilica and BaySand team on 65nm MPW runs" with quotes from executives: "“With EnSilica’s involvement in the ASIC UltraShuttle-65 program, our mutual customers now have the opportunity to implement a SoC with a full set of sophisticated IPs including RISC-based CPU, encryption and hardware accelerators,” says BaySand EVP of Marketing and Sales, Ehud Yuhjtman." So this is all essentially PR / trivial mentions. They only serve to confirm that the company exists, and do not rise to the level of CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's useful. I wish that Wpteoh would log in and explain why those references make our subject notable. K.e.coffman, my comment really didn't pertain to you, but more to the comment of Shoy, which appears to be incorrect. Now, I do not agree that the extensive quotes make it a press release, though it appears to be very friendly press. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMail

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

Nothing notable about this, just another

promotional. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --
talk 19:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Girl Meder

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

Unremarkable show. Page is FULL of redlinks with no references. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zackmann actually beat me to the nom. I prodded this yesterday. The show has no significant reliable sourcing under the translated name, under the Georgian title "გოგონა გარეუბნიდან მედიარი" (or without the MedER portion "მედიარი") or the transliterated "Gogona Gareubnidan" (with and without the "Mediari" at the end). I can't even tell if this is a medial drama a la Grey's Anatomy, like the article asserts and the title and the title card (which is real) suggests, or is an adaptation of Ugly Betty, which LatinTimes states in a trivial mention. Though, I'm seeing some non-RS sites say it was originally an Ugly Betty-esque drama and then switched to be like Grey's Anatomy. But, that's all irrelevant, because the sheer fact that I can barely verify this exists and how it even works says that it is not notable. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 15:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - No references. --
talk 19:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elhadji Ndoye

)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails
WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
talk 19:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Diakiese

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

Non notable athlete, doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE and minor games doesn't mean he should be included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter does not pass
WP:GNG. Just signing for the UFC is not enough - so far he has 0 of 3 top tier fights with no indication on how he will do.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No top tier fights yet and three are needed to meet
WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no top fights 71.190.34.72 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable MMA fighter. --
talk 19:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Charles Robinson

)

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

Non-notable, receiving an OBE, and the lowest level is not enough. No other claims of notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. It's ironic for someone using the honorific prefix "Sir" to claim that someone received "the lowest level" of OBE. There are no graduations in an OBE ("Officer of the Order of the British Empire"), and OBE is not the lowest grade in the
WP:ANI#Damage done by declining AFC, recently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I've been through this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. I thank
WP:GNG "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material ... no fixed number of sources required ... but multiple sources are generally expected". In the source "Lifetime Contribution award for small business mentor Tony Robinson". The Press (York), Robinson is the main topic. In the source "Why daring to be different can be good for business". The Guardian, Robinson has a section covering an interview with him. Two decent examples of coverage in major newspapers is sufficient to meet GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep presumed notable per
WP:GNG. Multiple instances of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, meets WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, agree with comments above. LazyLilac (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dementophobia

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

Another boilerplate phobia article with no actual clinical sources. GHits are amplified by use as a reference to social prejudice and by a band name. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Although I acknowledge there are some -phobia articles on fringe pillars, I have noticed that dementophobia is not merely discussed in lists but has gone further by gaining traction through use in permanently recorded media and additionally conveying meaning to the term that correlates with the definition provided here. ~~Laatmedaar (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)~~ Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete No reliable medical sources.
talk) 20:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No reliable medical sources, as stated.

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. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000 percent

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

This phrase is known only for its use in the

WP:NOTDICT), the information that it means "highly enthusiastic support" and "became a byword for foolish and insincere exaggeration" is better suited to Wiktionary, together with the usage examples, and the rest of the content belongs into articles about the election. Sandstein 13:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not true to claim the phrase is known "only" for its use in 1972. The articles gives examples from well-known writers in the 1950s. It's a standard POLITICAL phrase. 1) Harry Truman used the term in his 1956 Memoirs long before the 1972 election: [ with the “1000 percent support”of Senator Wherry] 2) Politicians in 1954: Thomas had pledged "1000-percent" support for McCarthy, "his objectives, and his methods." [Thomas C. Reeves - 1997] 3) support for a war: profound reluctance to get involved in just about any military endeavor that was not a clear win, that did not have 1,000 percent support of the American people [Georgie Anne Geyer - 2015]; 5) support for victims: "Holocaust compensation was sounded by Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. While registering “1000 percent” support “to get justice for all of the victims" [Norman G. Finkelstein - 2003]; 6) 10) Congressional support for a bill: We want to go on record here today in 100 percent, indeed 1000 percent support of the bill by Rep. Joel T. Broyhill [United States Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1974]. Going beyond politics we have many examples: 7) support for a spouse: "I would have expected 1000 percent support from my husband and yet I got none." [Margaret A. Heffernan - 2004]; 8) supporting missionaries: "Thanks to both of you for your 1000 percent support on this journey." [Emmanual M. Kolini, ‎Peter R. Holmes - 2010]; 9) at work place: “I never lost a dime in salary, never anything other than 1,000 percent support,” she says. “That's a debt of gratitude I never will be able to pay back.” [Joseph Coleman - 2015]; 10) the boss: "You must have 1000 percent support from the CEO" [Frank Pacetta, ‎Roger Gittines - 1995]; 11) for children "and as long as they are positive then we as a family will give them 1000 percent support." [Cincinnati Magazine - Feb 2000 - Page 109] Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

talk) 15:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I'm sorry, no matter how many occurrences one can cite, I have a hard time accepting at any occurrence of > 100% is notable here. I'm thinking of such expressions as "giving 110%," and so on. These may well be dictionary entries, though.
talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I would even be dubious about including this in wiktionary, but if it belongs anywhere, it's there. As it stands it's basically a definition and some examples of usage, which we could come up with for thousands of phrases, and I don't believe a compendium of phrases is one of the purposes of Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adding an extra zero to 100% is not sufficient cause for an article.10000% and 1000000% would likewise be out. Artw (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki rule is that: a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources.

WP:WORDISSUBJECT the answer to that is yes: One RS wrote: "the '1,000 percent phrase' is possibly the most damaging single faux pas ever". Trent, Judith S., and Jimmie D. Trent. "The rhetoric of the challenger: George Stanley McGovern." Communication Studies 25#1 (1974): 11-18. Also see detailed enycylopedic coverage by William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary (1993) pp 796-7; and Josh Chetwynd (2016) The Field Guide to Sports Metaphors: A Compendium of Competitive Words and Idioms pp. 9–10; as well as a full-length scholarly book that uses the term on 20 pages : Glasser, Joshua M. Eighteen-Day Running Mate: McGovern, Eagleton, and a Campaign in Crisis (Yale University Press, 2012). Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. Of course you've omitted the beginning of that sentence, which is: "In some cases..."

talk) 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest it fits this case well. Its 1972 use is one of the most important faux pas in history --dictionaries never say things like that! and the claim that it is limited to the 1972 election is just false. Babe Ruth was using it in 1920s ["let's bat 1000%"] Rjensen (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, look, I won't belabour my !vote. But the Babe probably said, 'let's go get 'em boys' and a thousand other things. And I'd argue that "batting 1000%" is different because he's riffing on batting .300 or .400. Anyway, we shall see.

talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

"1000%" has a literal meaning in the dictionaries (= a multiply by 10) and a figurative meaning in the history books and in literature and for Babe Ruth: as a metaphor it means very high emphasis, or enthusiastic support. It's widely used in politics as the pre-1960 cites to Truman, McCarthy, Allan Drury show. Since 1972 it also has a sarcastic use. ("he said 1000% but he really gave no support at all") The main dictionaries like OED and Webster's 3rd do not mention this usage. The 1000% term meets the Wiki notability criterion so I think the complaints all vanish.

Delete as I'm not seeing enough information about the phrase itself, other than in the context of particular examples, and other than as an example of what could just as well be 110%, 1000000%, 2000%. It's mathematical, a malapropism, or a way of expressing enthusiasm or unquestionable support, but in any of those cases it's one of many ways to do so, has some specifically noteworthy examples, but itself is not a distinct encyclopedic subject. I do have a question about whether this content can be used elsewhere. Perhaps there's a common subject mathematically nonsensical support? :) I'm not terribly familiar with the inclusion policies of Wikiquote, but could it support a page on the phrase? There's an awful lot to get it started, here. I wouldn't be opposed to Userfying while figuring out if it can be used elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments should be based on the Wiki rule: The wiki rule is that: a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. Notability. it is not true that "it could just as well be 110%, 1000000%, 2000%" -- we have a term that unlike them is unique and notable ["possibly the most damaging single faux pas ever" says RS] and is covered in numerous RS in fields such as politics & sports. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. And I am not seeing the kind of coverage that makes this an encyclopedic subject. I see documented usage. I see talk of particular uses. Where is the in depth coverage of the term, rather than e.g. an example of its use where it could've been any other "enthusiastic support" cliche? What unites the various usages? What is there to say about the topic if you remove specific uses? In e.g. the McGovern example, where is the term itself being discussed apart from its significance in the context of his withdrawal of support? The faux pas was not use of the term, it was expressing enthusiastic support and then withdrawing it, right? That he said it and that it was remarked upon is not coverage of the term itself sufficient to turn it into an encyclopedic subject -- it just makes a particular usage (among others) well documented, appropriate for inclusion in a quote book, dictionary, or particular examples in articles about their contexts (like the article about the campaign). I admit it's an awfully difficult thing to search for sources on, and I may have missed some of what you're referring to, so would be happy to take a look, but I haven't seen evidence of the term passing

WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

the test of notability is when multiple RS from multiple sources cover it, as happens here. Various critics have given other examples above but none of which get any notability scores whatever. Wikipedia is about notability and that is judged by all the cited RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the 1972 usage passes
WP:WORDISSUBJECT. See in particular this book which states "The instantly famous "thousand percent" phrase laid the groundwork for the Nixon campaign's charge that McGovern was, as one of their attack ads graphically showed, a weathervane." This article is well-sourced, and at the very worst the relevant parts might be merged into articles related to the 1972 election. If kept as a standalone article it might be trimmed back a bit, to focus on the election incident. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with

George McGovern presidential campaign, 1972. Outside of that campaign, the article is just a list of examples, with original analysis. Margalob (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Week keep. I wouldn't particularly mind merging this, but this phrase, especially in its relation to George McGovern and the 1972 president election, makes it notable and significant enough for its own article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If there is something to
United States presidential election, 1972. — JFG ^talk 02:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: While I think it is best to keep this article, if the decision is to delete, I recommend merging to
United States presidential election, 1972. The info pertaining to McGovern and the 1972 election seems too notable to delete outright. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to one of the 1972 presidential campaigns, either the main page or McGovern's. If it is notable in that context, which seems uncontested by the delete !votes, we can have the content there (and summarizing the non-1972 examples to a short phrase indicating later usage) and avoid dealing with whether there is standalone notability for the phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. the articles makes clear that the political use is not the only significant use, so a merge is inappropriate. -- DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Carlos Lousto

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

Autobiography (with input from sock) failing to satisfy

(talk) 10:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 10:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 10:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 10:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 10:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep 16 papers with over 100 cites each passes
WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Also Lousto is in the list of the breakthrough price recipients: https://breakthroughprize.org/News/32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colwikicol (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the obvious pass of
WP:PROF#C1, his APS Fellowship gives him a pass of #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow Keep. Simultaneous demonstration of at least 3 notability guidelines. Might be good form for nom to withdraw this. Agricola44 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Passes
WP:PROF#C3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 18:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Peterson (author)

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

promotional article for non notable writer. Copied from his about the author page (with a proper license), it still shows the inadvisability of doing so, for it reads like what it is: an advertisement. His books are not notable: WorldCat shows holdings of between 80 and 150 libraries, which is trivial for works of this genre. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sources Here: [13] is an interview with Peterson who is the author of audio books that are strong sellers. Of course,
Wall Street Journal
. And there is this long profile in a California weekly (Burning Book

Ryce, Walter. Monterey County Weekly [Seaside, Calif] 16 Oct 2008) because it is paywalled, I am reproducing it here:

Local adventure hobbyist releases a novel that carries a momentum to match his life's spirit.
Wearing a short-sleeved. Hawaiian shirt tucked into crisp jeans that end in sensible shoes, the 50-year-old Andrew Peterson could be a genial math teacher. Or a store manager on his day off.
But Peterson is-quite purposefully-an expert rifleman, accomplished diver, neophyte helicopter pilot and volunteer firefighter, and an action thriller author learning choice lessons about writing along the way.
At age 6, Peterson learned something at a summer camp that would ultimately make its way into the book: how to shoot with a bolt-action rifle. He continued to develop the "hobby," winning state championships in Arizona and Nevada, beating Marine Corps shooting teams in each.
"Guns have a negative connotation in our society," he says, visiting Salinas from his obscure in-county outpost between King City and Paso Rubles. "If you can get past that, it's a lot of fun. I'm not a hunter. I'm a target shooter."
He's also a volunteer firefighter in the unincorporated South County community of Lockwood. He wanted to give back to the community, he says, which brought him in proximity to some risky business.
"There was a fire about a mile from my house, before the Big Sur fires. Five acres. I was on the front lines-close enough to get sprayed by retardant from the firefighting bomber plane."
He's also gone to great depths in his chase for the new thrills.
"I've always enjoyed being in the water, so I thought, 'Why not go [deeper] underwater?'"
He went beyond recreational diving and received technical training in scuba diving off Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, exploring uncharted underwater caves and diving 200 feet into shipwrecks off the Bikini Atoll where the government exploded nuclear weapons in the 1940s and '5Os. Called "penetrative diving," it's among the most dicey styles of scuba.
He almost admits that the danger is part of the lure, he just has a different name for it: "challenge."
A self-storage real estate developer for 23 years, Peterson seems equally content with the quiet life afforded him by his remote home, where he lives with his wife of 19 years. But his thirst for challenge has motivated and moved him, and at least once nearly killed him.
"I like challenging things in my life," he says, "like scuba diving. And helicopters.
"I was training with my [helicopter] instructor, coming in for a Pinnacles landing when we got caught in a downdraft. We were going down into the bank. The instructor and I did the same maneuver in tandem: We applied left cyclic [control stick], turned the helicopter to the left, and followed the contour of the slope, sideways, down to safety."
Another recent challenge threw up a patch of turbulence: He began writing. A "big Star Trek fan," Peterson started-but didn't finish-a script for an episode of Star Trek: Next Generation. He did finish an action thriller manuscript, which he sent to freelance editor Ed Staclder, who's worked with thriller authors Greg lies and Ridley Pearson.
"He told me to abandon that book and work on another one," says Peterson, looking as deflated as if that rejection had just happened.
Maybe because Peterson couldn't resist die challenge, he did just that: nine months of writing followed by three months of editing until he was "sick of [the manuscript]." He sent it in. And in November 2007, Andrew Peterson became a published author.
"The warm glow from the cabin's I window told a lie. The scream from within told the truth."
That's how Peterson's adrenalized thriller First to ÊÁÉ begins. The protagonist is Nathan Daniel McBride, a former Marine sniper, CIA operative and assassin ("He's the only man with the skill necessary to get the job done," reads the book's back-jacket blurb). The U.S. government recruits him to defeat a band of rogue would-be terrorists.
The story tackles topical moral questions, like the use of deadly force and torture against terrorism. In a scene in which McBride is coercing information from two "miscreants," he tells them: "This is an anti-Miranda situation. You do not have the right to remain silent."
It's a precisely written story, if unsubtle, with political overtones and a vigorous paramilitary streak-fetish, even.
"Nathan McBride is an anti-hero," says Peterson. "He's not a Boy Scout But he still retains his humanity."
A sequel is planned as Peterson promotes First to Kill on a book tour of 97 West Coast Costco stores.
"I'm not saying I've extinguished all my thrill seeking, but I'm not a kid anymore," he says. "I don't know what's next I just hope something exciting happens."
Copyright Monterey County Coast Weekly Oct 16-Oct 22, 2008.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more on sources (Grit Lit: First get educated, then entertained, Knapp, Myles. Oakland Tribune [Oakland, Calif] 20 Sep 2009) is an interesting essay on men's action lit. Here's the part specific to Peterson, " "First To Kill" by Andrew Peterson. (Leisure Books $7.99 softcover, 356 pages, www.dorchesterpub .com) Nathan McBride was the best when he did a Michael Jordan. He walked away. Put his violent life as a Marine sniper and covert CIA operative behind him. But a ton of Semtex explosive disappeared, and the U.S. government coaxed him out of retirement.
It's action, action, action. "... (T)his guy was solid muscle and huge, taller than Nathan by an inch or two. With his shaved head and hourglass torso, he looked like a bouncer. To anyone else he might have looked intimidating. To Nathan, he was three hundred pounds of hamburger with an amphibian's brain attached."
Can you say "Wowee-Zowee!"?" E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there also exists a contemporary author of juvenile fiction named Andrew Peterson, who probably merits an article due to the popularity of his series "The Wingfeather Saga." (Books series can help draw in readers, Perry, MelissaView Profile. The Ithaca Journal [Ithaca, N.Y] 01 Oct 2015) If article is kept, title should be changed to clarify that hit is the author adult action thrillers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I started out as a skeptic on this badly written, poorly sourced
Wall Street Journal has in fact written him up; I just added that to the article. Lots of sources exist, just add keywords such as thriller character name or book titles to his name when searching. (with apologies for long comments above, I was trying to make it easier for other editors to evaluate password protected sources.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that "Wowee-Zowee!"?" (above) is not my phrasing. That was the reviewer for the Oakland Tribune.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to link to the
Wall Street Journal article that I referenced, "Amazon to Speed Up Authors' Royalty Payments", It notes that " one title published by Kindle Serials, Andrew Peterson's thriller "Option to Kill," has sold over 70,000 copies and is now available as a finished book digitally and as a trade paperback. The first episode of "Option to Kill" was published in September; the completed book was available digitally in late November and the paperback went on sale in early January."[14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The "review" that E.M. Gregory cites in full is a splendid example of a totally unreliable source -- or would be if it didn't give the show away in the first line "a local hobbyist" An article in even WSJ saying nothing more than that the book was published and sold a respectable but small numebr of copies is indeed from the other extrmee of published sources, but says nothing significant about the author. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. Pemberton, Patrick S. (2008-08-03). "A Man of Action - Local Author Interview Paso Writer Andrew Peterson's First Action-Adventure Novel Features Nathan McBride -- A Larger-Than-Life Rambo Type Yet as Believable as Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2016-08-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Like the main character in his debut novel, Andrew Peterson is a helicopter pilot and an expert marksman.
  Yet, aside from that, the fictional Nathan McBride doesn't outwardly have a lot in common with his creator. And from a marketing standpoint, that's probably a good thing.
  "There's really nothing very interesting about a real estate developer who's also an architect," said Peterson, who lives near Paso Robles.
  Peterson's writing career, which received a huge boost from bestselling author Ridley Pearson, is rooted in his childhood, when the La Jolla native would read science fiction books in his room.
  ...
  In junior high school, an English teacher predicted Peterson would one day become an author, but Peterson didn't believe him. Instead, he studied architecture at the University of Oklahoma. Becoming a draftsman didn't interest him, though, so he got into real estate development, specializing in storage units.
  The career switch fared well for Peterson, who drives a Hummer and took lessons to become a helicopter pilot. But he still had the bug for writing.
  After reading authors like Stephen King, Dean Koontz and John Saul, Peterson tried writing a horror novel in 1990.
2. Pemberton, Patrick S. (2011-12-04). "The Write Stuff - 'Operation Thriller II': Authors in Afghanistan - At the invitation of the USO, five thriller authors -- including Andrew Peterson of SLO County -- spent a week entertaining and visiting American troops in Afghanistan". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-08-29. Retrieved 2016-08-29.
  The article notes:
  
  After boarding a turboprop military transport plane, novelist Andrew Peterson knew immediately that the 3 1/2-hour flight into a war zone wasn't going to be anything like his previous -- first-class -- flight across the Atlantic.
  But it would offer an accurate glimpse into an American soldier's life in Afghanistan.
  ...
  Peterson coordinated the visit, called Operation Thriller II. The trip included high-profile writers Clive Cussler, who has written more than 50 books, including the popular Dirk Pitt series; Mark Bowden, whose book "Black Hawk Down" became a popular action movie directed by Ridley Scott; Kathy Reichs, the forensic anthropologist whose books inspired the TV show "Bones"; and Sandra Brown, a thriller and romance novelist who has 80 million copies of her books in print.
  Less a household name, Peterson has written two novels, both featuring Marine sniper Nathan McBride -- "Forced to Kill" and "First to Kill," the latter of which was recently optioned for a motion picture.
  "I'm sort of the rookie of the group," said Peterson, a trained architect, who made a living as a real estate developer and self-storage entrepreneur before turning to writing full time. "I only have two books out; my fellow authors are really well known."
3. McKenzie, Kathryn (2011-08-21). "Authors take 'Operation Thriller' to troops". The Monterey County Herald. Retrieved 2016-08-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Although Andrew Peterson writes novels about daring acts and undercover intrigue, he hasn't personally experienced any of this in real life. Until now.
  Peterson, a resident of the Bryson Hesperia area in southernmost Monterey County, will visit the Middle East with other best-selling thriller writers in late September as part of a special USO/Armed Forces Entertainment tour.
  The author of "First To Kill" (Leisure Books, 2008) and "Forced To Kill" (Audible.com, 2011) said it's the least he can do for the soldiers serving our country.
  ...
  Born and raised in San Diego, Peterson earned a bachelor's degree in architecture, but ended up becoming a successful real estate developer and self-storage entrepreneur. He and his wife, Carla, moved to their 120-acre spread in Bryson Hesperia a decade ago to enjoy the peace and quiet of this rural area near Bradley.
  Peterson has been writing short stories and novels for many years, but it wasn't until 2008 that his first book was published. He had started out as a horror writer, but realized it wasn't a good fit for him, and switched to his present genre.
4. The Monterey County Weekly article and MarketWatch articles mentioned by E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs).
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Andrew Peterson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment it is sufficient evidence to reject these sources from their very titles: "local author'. Local news coverage of local authors is both indiscriminate and unreliable Essentially any author will get covered, and they well in general not be covered objectively. The books are furthermore insignificant--Worldcat shows at total of les then 80 holdings for all of them together, and this is a genre where significant books are in many hundreds of libraries. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I called that profile in the local paper a profile - not a "review," I try to be careful about that distinction. Sources I and others found on Peterson comprise a handful of feature stories/profiles in local newspapers, although the
Wall Street Journal where he is described as an early example of strong digital sales with his thriller "Option to Kill." Libraries may not have bought it, but 70,000 copies is not nothing. I hope an editor or 2 who regularly look at author notability will take a look at this (at best) marginally notable paperback writer; despite the excessive length of this page (largely my fault) the facts here are pretty simple.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I came here to close this, but I can't, so I'll throw in my two cents. The article reads like a promotional blurb, especially given the repeated use of the author's first name. AfD isn't cleanup, but this usage suggests problems. Stuff like this is cringe-worthy: "While on his book signing tour, Andrew took time to visit VA hospitals and sit with USA military veterans. He gave away hundreds of books." I agree with DGG that the coverage is local in nature; there is no indication of broader notability. If you strip away the marketing fluff there's probably not much left. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I've been planning to comment; none of this is sufficiently convincing especially since the links above, as shown, are not substantial; and also the nomination has clearly insinuated and shown why this is still not going to be enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate A. Toomey

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

Does not appear to meet any of the BLP notability criteria even after a Google search. The article does not contain any claims to importance or significance, and I do not recall state Appeal Court judges as being inherently notable. The sources provided are routine mentions and are not in-depth media coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep high ranking state judges are considered inherently notable. This is 100% clear state supreme court, but also extends to state appeals court.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, please provide a link to where that is cxlearly stated, becaus I searched for one and couldn't find such a special exception, and otherwise your vote is invalid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur this particular position is not convincing for her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per
WP:POLITICIAN. position is notable by definition. Nom and SwisterTwister are mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- The material is cited to primary sources www.utcourts.gov & utah.gov; I cannot find any secondary coverage except a local news brief about the appointment. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it clearly fails GNG and
WP:NPOL. The Utah Court of Appeals is an intermediate court in a state and this position doesn't guarantee notability. More importantly the coverage in reliable and independent sources is sparse. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to / Merge with Utah Court of Appeals, which would benefit from the addition of information, as it's currently tagged as not citing any sources. The sources are not sufficient to establish Ms Toomey's individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per
WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

These are not in-depth sources: links #1 and #3 are about the judge's cases. The cases may be notable, but that's
WP:ROUTINE coverage associated with a judge's job. As in: "Judge Kate Toomey's decision goes against two Utah-based cab companies' assertion in a lawsuit that HB104 prohibits Salt Lake City International Airport from imposing age and mileage requirements on ground transportation vehicles." This is about the case, not the subject of the article under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI don't think that a State Appeals Court judge is automatically excluded or included by
WP:NPOL and notability should be determined by secondary coverage. I don't believe there is sufficient secondary coverage. The sources cited above are mostly reporting on judicial cases that mention her rulings. There is little coverage of her as a judge, beyond one press-release type article on her appointment. MB 19:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She is a high-level politician as being part of the Utah Court of Appeals. I added additional information to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it interesting that those who do not understand the court system in the United States would vote to delete the page. The Utah Court of Appeals is the second highest court in Utah. The judges appointed to the court are key persons in the legal community. In addition, most appellate courts in other states have pages for their judges. These judges influence the law and issue opinions every year that are key. For these reasons, the page should not be deleted.Jurisdicta (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at California Court of Appeals, and very few judges have articles, perhaps 10%:
Start of the list. That's why perhaps a redirect may be appropriate. The court is notable, while the individual judge may not be. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep as no one has suggested deletion by all means at all, after 2 weeks, so this can be kept and subsequently suggested if any other changes are needed, although I will note it is common for these subjects to stay (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka Americans

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hakka Americans

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

This article was created by the same user who created the recent Hokkien and Hoklo Americans article. Searching on Google Books I found no results on "Hakka Americans". There are information about Chinese Americans who speaks Hakka, but on the concept of Hakka Americans itself, I can't find any English language sources to support this. Balthazarduju (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google results: a Facebook page on an association on "Hakka Americans", a book on Hakka cuisine in North America describes the author as "Hakka-American", an article mentioning "Hakka americans", articles of Hakka Affairs Council, Taiwan, on "Hakka-American", "客裔美國人", "美國的客家人", "旅美客家人" and "美國客家", 美國客家人. There are also America Hakka Center, Hakka Association for Public Affairs in North America and various Hakka Associations in American cities.

WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". Lysimachi (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

One line in a web page about this cookbook [15], a mention in a blog [16], Facebook page called "Hakka Association of Houston"?--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These links ("America Hakka Center, Hakka Association for Public Affairs in North America and various Hakka Associations in American cities") with information about "Taiwan Hakka" or "Taiwanese Hakka" that are in the United States, does not support creating an article called "Hakka Americans".--Balthazarduju (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about the title are entirely valid, however that's not for AFD, it's a requested moves discussion. Thus I recommend this afd be speedily closed (please don't count this a separate vote)--Prisencolin (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as with the Hoklo American page (I am the creator of both), there are sources just not anything titled as "Hakka Americans". There is also the history of Hakkas in Hawaii that should be noted.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably better to open up a
WP:RM rather than deleting the article entirely. Meatsgains (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Are there actually any scholarly works about "Hakka Americans"? Note that it is quite easy to create pages about the intersection of ethnicity and nationality but there needs to be some scholarly work about it. I am struggling to find it here. I personally think this should be merged into a suitable page, but which one, we need to decide. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comment by
WP:SYNTH. I am leaning towards a delete now as I couldn't find scholarly works on "Hakka Americans". If there are no such works, this is almost entirely original research. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ [1] Archived March 16, 2014, at the Wayback Machine

@
ISBN 978-0-7591-1554-5., I think there are more sources that touch on that. It seems to be a notable ethnic group, a subdivision of Chinese Americans. Therefore I'll vote weak keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that juxtaposition is
WP:NOTSYNTHESIS. Also, there don't need to any scholarly works specifically about this subject if there are many abou Asian Americans and Hakka diaspora, both of which mention this subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. On the comments of Lemongirl942: 1. If you think some texts are questionable, you could add a citation needed tag. That some parts of an article seems to be OR doesn't mean the topic itself is OR. 2. I checked the reasons for deletion at
WP:SYNTH. The concept of Hakka Americans can be found in the sources listed in the above discussion. Lysimachi (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm precisely saying that the concept of "Hakka Americans" doesn't exist. Or show me some reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Chinese American
For the following reasons

Per
WP:NOTNEO
No scholarly work even uses the term "Hakka American". When we have intersections such as these, we need reliable sources to back it up - and we need reliable sources to address the exact topic directly and in detail.
Nobody seems to have actually defined the term "Hakka American". There needs to be at least one definition in a reliable source. I cannot find any. Without such a definition, this would be
WP:OR
and a shaky foundation for the article.
I also see this as a "kind of" POV Fork (and that too a
WP:FRINGE one) from Chinese Americans (although to clarify, the content is not NPOV). Chinese Americans refers to Americans of Chinese ancestry (regardless of the nation of origin - this includes Chinese from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc). Hakka Americans
are part of it. I see no reason why this shouldn't be covered in that article.

I do not see sources specifically distinguishing between Chinese Americans and Hakka Americans. Hakka Americans are also ethnically Chinese Americans. I have yet to see someone who claims to be Hakka and yet they claim to be not ethnic Chinese.
Whether an ethnic identity of "Hakka Americans" exists is questionable. I do not see any scholarly works showing evidence of a sense of distinct identity among "Hakka Americans" - to be honest, I have never heard of Americans self identifying as Hakka Americans. (You can contrast this with Singapore, where Hokkien and Teochew people often identify with their dialect. They are still classified as Chinese Singaporeans).
I am also concerned with the factual accuracy of the article. Anya Ayoung-Chee is part of the list, although no reliable source says she is Hakka American. This is essentially original research.
There is a lot of
WP:COATRACK
in the article. For example, "During the 1960s and 1970s, substantial migration of Jamaican Hakkas to the USA and Canada occurred." is not supported by the source. The rest is plain coatrack.
Overall, the sources do not address the topic at all and this is not encyclopaedic. Redirect or delete, either is fine with me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a distinct Hakka identity in Mainland China and Taiwan, although in some parts of the world they become assimilated into the general Chinese community. Global Hakka: Hakka Identity in the Remaking is apparently a whole book about the Hakka diaspora. I don't have access to the whole book but there is a listing from United States in the Index.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've temporarily renamed the page in recognition of

WP:NEOLOGISM concerns.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or Merge to [[Chinese ethnic groups in the United States]].--Pharos (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese ethnic groups: "The major minority ethnic groups in China are Zhuang (16.9 million), Uyghur (11.5 million), Hui (10.5 million), Manchu (10.3 million), Miao (9.4 million), Yi (8.7 million), Tujia (8.3 million), Tibetan (6.2 million), Mongol (5.9 million), Dong (2.8 million), Buyei (2.8 million), Yao (2.7 million), Bai (1.9 million), Korean (1.8 million), Hani (1.6 million), Li (1.4 million), Kazakh (1.4 million), and Dai (1.2 million)." So Tibetan Americans, Manchu Americans, Kazakh Americans, Korean Americans... should all be merged to [[Chinese ethnic groups in the United States]]?? Lysimachi (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It would cover the ethnic diversity of Chinese Americans, as defined in that article.--Pharos (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Taiwanese Americans. FYI I posted the same rationale to the current AFD for Hokkien_and_Hoklo_Americans. The few academic sources I found that specifically mention Hoklo and Hakka immigrants in the U.S. all said that in Taiwan and in the US, the Hoklo and the Hakka self-identify as "native Taiwanese". For example, this 2006 journal article by Christine Avenarius, who seems to be an authority on the topic, was the most in-depth coverage I found on Taiwanese subethnic groups in the US, and according to Avenarius (with my emphasis):
"Immigrants interviewed for this research were...able to identify who was Hoklo, Hakka or a Mainlander among the members of their social networks. However, in their comments on social life in Taiwan and California in general, all informants grouped Hoklo and Hakka people together, referring to them as native Taiwanese (bendiren)...Given the small number of Hakka informants in the sample and the common practice of all immigrants from Taiwan to group both Hoklo and Hakka together under the label 'native Taiwanese' (bendiren) as introduced above, I aggregated Hoklo and Hakka informants in the analysis."

Relevant quotes from other academic sources

Lien, Pei-te (November 2008), "Homeland origins and political identities among Chinese in Southern California", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31 (8): 13811403,
doi:10.1080/01419870701682253
- That the nature of ethnic identity is fluid and multi-layered is observed by anthropologist Franklin Ng (1998, p. 118) who comments that, like Chinese from elsewhere, migrants and their descents from Taiwan can consider themselves as Taiwanese American, Chinese American, Asian American or American, and the identity choices depend on the situation, the community and the individuals involved.
- Despite the improvement over previous means, this categorization scheme is not able to capture the full spectrum of the nuanced effect of homeland socialization context because of the lack of a measure of parental lineage and their time of entry to Taiwan. In contemporary Taiwan, those who were born in Taiwan but with parents born in China were considered ‘mainlanders’ and they tend to identify themselves ethnically as Chinese rather than Taiwanese, an orientation that has been observed to be different from that of other Taiwan natives whose parents were born in Taiwan. However, research on public opinion in Taiwan shows that it would be a mistake to treat the two groups of Taiwan natives [Hoklo and Hakka] as completely distinct in their orientation on the independence issue and their socialization experiences.

Ma, Laurence J. C.; Cartier, Carolyn L. (2003), The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Place, Mobility, and Identity, Rowman & Littlefield,
ISBN 9780742517561
- The Hoklo speak Min-nan hua, or Southern Min, the same dialect still found in Fujian, but typically referred to in Taiwan today as (imprecisely) the 'Taiwanese' dialect or language...For the sake of simplicity, and for political differentiation, the Hakka and Hoklo have been lumped together in post-1945 Taiwan as the collective 'Taiwanese.' to distinguish them as the 'native' Chinese of Taiwan as opposed to the more recent Han Chinese immigrants (the 'mainlanders') of the postwar era. This classification of the 'Taiwanese,' which has both ethnic and political overtones, was a creation o the mainlander-run ROC government, but was accepted and even embraced by most Hakka/Hoklo Taiwanese in the harsh political climate of post-1945 Taiwan. (p.165-166)

I can't find enough coverage that's actually on this topic to be able to write an article without

common name. —PermStrump(talk) 09:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Jamaica is also a major source of Hakka immigration to the US. Finding Samuel Lowe is a book about a Jamaican Hakka immigrant, written by his descendant,

Paula Madison.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Permstrump: There are Taiwanese Hakka Americans and Chinese Hakka Americans. How can Hakka Americans simply be merged into Taiwanese Americans? Lysimachi (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lysimachi: Gotcha. All of the academic sources I found were talking about Taiwanese Americans that mentioned Hakka/Hoklo, but what Lemongirl942 said below helped me see the big picture. —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Original Research: We need reliable independent sources. The source from the Hakka Affairs Council cannot be considered independent. This is the reason why scholarly sources are preferred: they have undergone peer review. Another important thing is
WP:ENN. We don't have article simply because some people may identity as a Hakka culture. The reason why this article is OR is because it is trying to classify distinct groups of people - "Chinese Jamaicans who emigrated to US". "Taiwanese who emigrated to US", "PRC Chinese who emigrated to US" all under the umbrella of "Hakka Americans". This is something which we are not supposed to do unless an existing work has done it and this has found reasonable acceptance. For example, existing sources talk separately about Chinese Jamaicans (and talk about Hakka ancestry within this context), Taiwanese Americans (and talk about Hakka ancestry within this context), Americans from PR China (and talk about people with Hakka culture). But they do not string them together and there is no talk about a unified Hakka American identity. Until such a time arrives, Chinese Jamaicans of Hakka descent are to be covered within Chinese Jamaicans (and so on for the other articles). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ENN: "This page is an essay . . . Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Lysimachi (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources don't have to be scholarly, but to meet
synthesizes material from multiple sources to imply a conclusion that isn't made in any of the sources. —PermStrump(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What exactly is that synthesized conclusion? Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The index of Global Hakka: Hakka Identity in the Remaking lists all of the major nationalities of Hakka overseas, including the United States. I don't think there should be any question anymore that the premise of the article itself is purely original research.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Chinese American. MB 22:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note there are Taiwanese Hakka Americans. Lysimachi (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And Jamaican Hakka Americans with not direct political connection to China--Prisencolin (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Chinese Americans are "Americans who have full or partial Chinese ancestry" (from the article lead). Intervening political labels do not change ancestry. The lead goes on to state their ancestors may be from Taiwan and other places. The article is very inclusive. MB 01:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

1.
WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)." Lysimachi (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

1. I was not citing WP as a source, I was stating what the article is about/why it is an appropriate redirect. 2. Yes it does; why don't you read the article before commenting. 3. You can disregard political boundaries if you are just talking about ethnicity. 4. I didn't use Chinese Americans in a "very inclusive" way, I said that the article Chinese Americans was inclusive - it is about about all Americans with Chinese ancestry. It is neutral to look at ancestry without regard to politics. If you think that Taiwanese people do not have Chinese ancestry (except for the indigenous islanders), then you don't have a NPOV. MB 13:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. So please tell us what is the definition of "Chinese ancestry"? 3. You can't disregard it, because "Chinese" refers to China. Lysimachi (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, there is enough information here, as well as more that will be added later, that would justify a standalone article. A merger into the

WP:FOREIGNSOURCES--Prisencolin (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is the synth. The Chinese Jamaicans who emigrated to US later as considered as "Chinese Jamaicans" - they are not considered as "Hakka Americans". Unless an external source talks about "Hakka Americans" and then says "Chinese Jamaicans" are also included in it, we should not include it here. This is the problem. When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity - and for this we need multiple reliable sources to actually show it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity" Is it stated in any WP policy? Lysimachi (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Did you even comprehend what I said? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any WP policy that supports "When you create an article called "Hakka American" it becomes an identity"? Lysimachi (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Hakka American is not an identity? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking if there is any WP policy that supports your statement. Lysimachi (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was a pretty basic one and it isn't a policy. I'm not convinced that you actually understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines as you were recently blocked for edit warring despite multiple warnings to make you understand. I suggest you take some time to actually understand how Wikipedia works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not supported by any policy or guideline? Great, thanks for answering. Lysimachi (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lysimachi, would you support me moving the article back to "Hakka people in the United States". It really doesn't seem like the phrase "Hakka Americans" is in widespread usage.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Prisencolin, because "Hakka American" is in use while there are only four Google search results for "Hakka people in the United States", all from WP, and because the former is the way different groups of people in the USA are named on WP. Lysimachi (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this but this is a

WP:CIR case. You arguments don't make sense at all. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to Chinese Americans. After following the discussion above I'm of the opinion that without impermissible synthesis there is nothing on this subject to use for an article that reliable sources would support. Certainly there are Americans of Hakka descent, but an article at this point would be at the vanguard of recognizing this group. That is not our role. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be blunt, but that's just not true at all. Basically all the sources the sources do explicitly acknowledge the existence of Hakka people in the US. There's even a reliable source estimating that there are over 20,000 Hakka in America. Let's not get this confused the the Hoklo and Hokkien people debate, which I'll admit pushes WP:SYNTH a bit to make some of its points. This article, however, does not.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are Hakka Americans of Taiwanese origin. Redirect to
  WP:NPOV. Also, there's nothing that needs to be "recognized" by this article, which is not even a function of WP, the concept exists and there are people who identify with it. Lysimachi (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Chinese Americans refers to people of Chinese ethnicity and not solely Chinese nationality. That's the scope of the article. None of that violates NPOV.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Chinese ethnicity" is a very broad construct that does have many common features but the various sub-ethnicities, especially Hakka, are distinct enough to warrant a separate article in this case.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem separate concepts, and there should be separate articles. The argument about lack of English sources is irrelevant if there are Chinese sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sutal Awards

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

Could not find a single reliable source in the article's references. Article does not seem to meet WP:GNG Aust331 (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete -- does not meet GNG. Appears to be part of another non notable entity "Miss Supertalent", so no redirect target is available. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WiseMapping

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

Searches are simply finding mentions and there's simply nothing overall actually convincing for substance. I was actually PRODing when I noticed the 1st PROD (this was actually restored after the apparent PROD contesting). SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial on a non-notable product. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the best I could find is a brief blurb here: Collaboration in Creative Design: Methods and Tools. Meets
WP:exists, but insufficient in for an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editors advocating deletion had the better of the policy argument here, as the subject does not meet the project guideline

WP:SOLDIER and lacks independent coverage that suggests notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Roy Baker-Falkner

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Is an entry in peerage enough to make him notable? Otherwise there is nothing to indicate notability Gbawden (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for taking an interest in this article, Gbawden. No, definitely a mention in 'The peerage' alone does not indicate notability. It was the only source I could find for some of his biographical details, but your comments made me dig deeper and I have now replaced it with the more detailed information of Veteran Affairs Canada. Notability in this case is based on his important role in Operation Tungsten, the decorations he received and the fact that he was mentioned in dispatches. The other sources listed relate to this. I think that puts it more or less is in line with WP:SOLDIER but I'd be interested to hear your views on this. Nl maclean (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reliable sources indicate subject was "mentioned in dispatches" which seems to pass WP:SOLDIER. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently I misread the SNG; being mentioned doesn't meet the criteria. The subject otherwise doesn't pass SOLDIER or GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to pass
WP:SOLDIER for mentioned in dispatches. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In reply to the two posts above, "mentioned in dispatches" comes nowhere near being the nation's highest award for valour as required by
WP:SOLDIER criterion 1, and I don't see how anyone could think that it meets any other of the criteria. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with '157 here--this is not a qualifying award. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'm not finding anything substantial in Google books. Mentioned in despatches does not meet SOLDIER1. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- K.e.coffman, I am not quite sure I understand. The Google books link you posted actually leads to the R.F. Baker-Falkner's biography? Nl maclean (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if it would be considered RS. It's written by a one-time author for Pen & Sword, a non-scholarly publisher, as I understand. The author has no training as a historian, journalist or writer: LinkedIn profile. It's also odd that so few sources mention the subject; if he was a "legendary pilot" surely there would be more sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Baker-Falkner is also mentioned in Patrick Bishop's The Hunt for Hitler's Warship. Kges1901 (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mystified as to why editors seem to think a
WP:SOLDIER. It's the lowest possible British award, which doesn't even qualify as a medal. Both his DSO and DSC are considerably higher, and neither of those would qualify under WP:SOLDIER either (as a second- and third-level award respectively). Bizarre reasoning from people who clearly don't understand how British honours work. He would need a DSO and bar (or at a pinch a DSO and a DSC and bar, or a DSC and two bars) to qualify him on awards alone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- I think the 'bizarre reasoning' you mention may have something to do with the wording of WP:SOLDIER: "It is important to note that a person who does not meet these criteria is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. For example, Teddy Sheean, who received a Mention in Despatches, is notable despite having received a relatively low-level military decoration." People who are not aware that a Mention in Despatches is in fact a decoration in its own right, could read this as meaning that where Wikipedia-notability is concerned, MiD trumps a low-level medal. I know that is how I read it. But thanks for explaining. Nl maclean (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't know what a particular phrase, such as "mentioned in dispatches", means then shouldn't you check before expressing an opinion in a deletion discussion? If people don't do this then the results of discussions will be based on ignorance. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Effectively a DSO and Bar for this chap, although the SOLDIER presumption is fairly weak here, and the MiD is neither here nor there, really. The Google Books search isn't conclusive. BTW, the Sheehan reference in SOLDIER is about someone who meets the GNG without meeting SOLDIER (ie award of the MiD doesn't meet SOLDIER, but Sheehan has significant coverage in reliable sources anyway, so meets the GNG). SOLDIER is an essay, GNG is a guideline. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does a DSO and DSC equate to a DSO and Bar?! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It obviously doesn't. The subject clearly doesn't pass
    general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep - its weak per PM's post above, but there seems to be enough coverage per WP:GNG to not dynamite this (including the dead tree biography and a few websites). In addition to the Canadian websites the publication of the biography seemed to get some international press coverage, e.g. UK and Malta [18][19] as examples, it looked like there were others when I searched Google. Anotherclown (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems rather clear to me that somebody who got a biography written about him is notable. Pen & Sword is not a vanity press. Whether he passes SOLDIER is basically irrelevant - does the subject pass GNG? Obviously. Parsecboy (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ this one is by no means a slam dunk, but this is a real newspaper feature story/interview with the author of the biography and I think it squeaks past. [20].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The newspaper article linked by E.M.Gregory reveals why there is a biography of the subject even though he was only a lieutenant commander, a mid-ranking officer, with no other apparent significant coverage - the biography was written by his nephew. In the absence of any significant coverage in independent (non-family) reliable sources this is a pretty clear "delete". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Indeed, the source linked by E.M.Gregory states:

"Now his nephew, Graham Roy Drucker has written his uncle's biography, Wings Over Waves to preserve his memory forever."

This is not a source independent of the subject, and should be discounted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Kealoha

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

This is an unsourced, single line bio with no claim of notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any additional sources for verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias (YouTube personality)

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

No reliable sources that this gentleman is Notable BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is in
WP:CSD#A7 territory, I think. shoy (reactions) 15:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Nothing independent to show notability.
Ravensfire (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Laura Bryan

)

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

Bryan is primarily notable for being Miss Alabama. This is basically notability for one event. She was also an advocate for a law allowing children with autism to bring dogs with them to school. However it is hard to say she was as much a driving force behind the law being enacted as the article suggests. I just do not think that this is enough combined to merit an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 04:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2012 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Alabama. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meg McGuffin

)

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

McGuffin is only notable for being Miss Alabama. There is nothing to suggest that this receives wide enough coverage to merit an encyclopedia article. The article is based on extremely local soruces, sources mentioning her winning Miss Auburn University, and even has a picture of an egg mcmuffin because evidently this was her nickname when she was a child. Nothing to suggest more than one event notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Alabama as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2015 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage meeting the
WP:GNG. She's a smart cookie to boot.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and Redirect as she has not obtained enough to suggest she has actual substance for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Entrepreneurs Foundation

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

Masses of refs from their own web-site. Refs from all the start-ups they have helped and refs for key players but I can't see a single ref that gives notability to the organisation. No evidence of any notability. Appears to fail

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits - there's not enough evidence of independent notability. If you delete all sources published by the subject, you're left with nothing of substance. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) -- I think there's potential as the organisation is mentioned somewhat regularly in The Guardian, for example: "How to get ahead ... as a social entrepreneur". K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would agree that the reference problem is difficult, but perhaps fixable.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Main Level

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

Fails

WP:BAND as far as I can tell. Telaneo (User talk page) 00:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 01:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, fails to meet
WP:BAND, as mentioned above. --Orland (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google search doesn't yield sources to establish notability and as per nom. DarthVader (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Positive culture

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

“

Positive culture is the view of traditions, tools, nature, or other ideas by the good that brings to the societies where they are part.

”

I cant make sense of this. References in the article seem to provide no clue what the topic is except that it is something positive. The typical google and academic database searches provide many hits in terms of organizational culture but nothing that approaches the scope of what this article is going for. My only conclusion is that it is

WP:TNT applies. Savonneux (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete As the nominator concluded, this is synthesis and original research. The writer has taken references describing various aspects of culture as "positive" and combined them in attempt to create a discrete topic which does not really exist. Although the motivation may be noble, the result does not belong in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR collection of various topics, as others have said.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a random assemblage of "positive" things, likely constituting OR and synthesis, as other commenters have observed. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTDICT. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - seems to be a
synthesis of unconnected ideas. Blythwood (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - agree with the above that this looks to be
WP:SYNTH. Also doesn't seem to be any claim to notability, relying entirely on the notability of its component parts -- all of which already have articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete "Positive culture" seems a notable concept for bacterial growth, but I was unable to find secondary sources discussing all the subtopics in the article in a comprehensive way. Hence there is a lot of synthesis in this article and probably some OR. Without in-depth independent reliable sources, the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Port City PD

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: an unremarkable series & significant RS coverage cannot be found. Previous AfD withdrawn by nominator, but I don't see that the sources are there to sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as none of this is actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and relies on primary sources. Instaurare (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Star Trek

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is too far gone to repair. Nominating per

WP:TNT says, help encourage a new article and so people will actually fix it. Gestrid (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree there needs to be a massive rewrite, not all of it is bad, and there needs to be recognition of previous contributors since some of this should be kept in a massive rewrite. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(
WP:AFC for example. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The thing is, you're arguing for TNT of a topic that is clearly notable (there's at least one published book on this topic), so we have to look at the value of the contributions. If there was no value to any reasonable fraction of the previous edits, TNT makes sense, but reviewing the past history, there was clearly well-intended additions, maybe not all in line with WP:V but are concepts that seem to be appropriate for the article. So deleting that revision history makes no sense. But as pointed out below, perhaps stubbify and having a AFC/Draft-space version worked on that then can be history merged to this is completely in line. But deletion under TNT just doesn't make sense here. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, it could be organized better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Well referenced? Did you read it? Is this a parody of a vote? Large parts of this, probably most, are purely OR detailing the minute plot points of whatever episode some fan decided to write about, or extensive citations of this or that actor's comments on their own character. Revent^talk 03:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to 'quantify' this, for the sake of people who will also not read it, out of five top level sections, not counting the lede, three have absolutely no references. Revent^talk 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

refimprove}}, as there are plenty of each. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - a bold edit to stubiffy would probably go unmolested, particularly if a heads-up gets dropped and supported at the wikiproject talk page. The topic itself is surely
notable, and outright deletion seems an inapt approach. I wholeheartedly agree it needs a fresh start; what's necessary isn't wholesale elimination (including edit history, some of which we might want to retain in a new iteration) but rather an editor or two prioritizing not just erasing the content but putting together a framework for improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep because the unreferenced / refimprove sections are mostly, if not all of them, facts. Synopses for episodes are easy to find on the Internet, and over time, if people are willing, will populate those story snippets with references. There are a few in-lines which need their sources a great deal more, but the article doesn't have to be perfect. The sections could do with a little reorganization of structure, and the header could use a brush-up on briefly saying what the article is about, emphasis on briefly. Nevertheless, the article is encyclopedic in nature, informative as it stands, and it appears to be a notable topic with a slew of references. WinterSpw (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, perfectly salvagable article. Artw (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly there is a lot of unloved articles related to Star Trek, and this is one of them. However, a lack of cited information is not reason to delete an article - otherwise we'd have a lot less articles below GA across Wiki than we do now. Completely agree that this needs to be overhauled, but that in itself is by no means unique. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 John F. Kennedy Airport shooting

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

Article created 40 minutes after an event with no indication of notability. Currently, news says there are no injuries and no suspects. Reports say witnesses but no police heard the shots ([21]). This article violates

WP:TOOSOON. Zero indication at this point of sustained notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is a dramatic change in the reporting. At this time, it is reported that shots may have been fired, and that there are no injuries and no arrests. If that is reasonably accurate, then this incident is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All reports now say it was a false alarm. Rossbawse (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kristijh (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per
WP:NOTNEWS. Fortunately, it was just a false alarm, so there's not even the slightest hint of notability anymore. GAB^gab 15:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Now false shots. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close. ansh 666 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a scare now. Nothing really happened. Parsley Man (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial. Instaurare (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parnia Porsche

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet

WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Nothing to show notability as a boxer and coverage is mainly routine sports reporting, from her sponsors, or social media.Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It's quite clear
WP:ENTERTAINER, which covers models and celebrities, is met--although some might argue that appearing in Maxim shows/generates notability. My apathy, and hence lack of knowledge, about the entertainment business and pop culture means I don't feel real comfortable voting at this time. If I had to vote, and I don't, I'd be leaning towards delete. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a boxer she fails to meet
WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scalable Capital

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

Just like the recently deleted

WP:CORP. The references are merely publicity, but provide no proof of anything notable other than that the company exists. Article created by SPA, likely to promote it. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this appears to a newly launched company / service, seeking attention; sample coverage: "A robo-advisor that claims to have made 12% return over Brexit is expanding. A robo-advisor start-up that automatically allocates your investments and claims to have outperformed the market during the Brexit volatility, has launched in the U.K." (link). Etc.

No yet indication of any notability. The only coverage is funding and launch related news. Also appears to be a case of COI/SPA editing. Suggest deleting until (and when) something more substantial can be produced, if at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the high bar of
WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

See the highly related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marianneslam/Scalable Capital. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Prenatal and perinatal psychology. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fetal psychology

)

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

Reason The article „fetal psychology“ should be deleted. 1. There is an improved and rewritten article „prenatal and perinatal psychology“ which contains useful information of the topic (fetal psychology). 2. The article „fetal psychology“ contains a large passage on the so called "fetal origins hypothesis", which deals almost entirely with physiological aspects – not with psychological aspects. 3. The part on the abuse of prenatal/fetal psychology concerning scientology does not define the field. It also discredits serious scientific work which constitute the scientific basis for assumptions concerning a „fetal psychology“. Mr. bobby (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you also wrote your call for deletion into the lead of the article, which is not done. Such comments belong here. I've cleaned up the article lead.
talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh also just to point out that the nominated article has been tagged as a merge to
talk) 15:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

My inclination is to go along with the nominator per
talk) 17:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Not much. The part on the „Fetal origins hypothesis“ might be useful, but not the findings mentioned here. there is new data on the connection of prenatal stress (of fetus and mother) and the negative outcomes on the baby’s psyche. but this is not worked out here. the rest (hemingway, hubbard) are anecdotes. overall, the article is useless. Mr. bobby (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, some folks may call for a 'selective merge' (as we call it here) for parts that are judged relevant. As you've nominated it for outright deletion, what's to be potentially preserved may become part of the discussion here. We'll see.

talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect and hard protect to
salt it in any case. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect per User:Bearian. there's clearly no reason to have two articles but I can see people searching the shorter term. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prenatal and perinatal psychology per above. Doesn't seem like deletion is necessary -- probably could've just been boldly merged (if there's content to merge) and redirected without AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Kansas USA. Sam Walton (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Saunders

)

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

Nothing she has done comes even marginally close to making her notable other than winning Miss Kansas USA, and that is not enough of its own to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ sometimes we keep articles on pageant winners, sometimes not. Although the article could use some editing, the issue here is notability. I'm finding articles in third party publications about the subject and therefore is enough to pass
WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- Comment I confess that I'm unable to repeat the results of my search when I posted this... I will strike.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for article; fails GNG
talk) 05:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Kansas USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there as the 2005 winner. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:BIO1E and a minor one at that. Trivial mentions and does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Northamerica1000.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as having one model position as a state is not actually substantial or convincing for her own established independent notability as an article. SwisterTwister talk 17:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draftspace. (

Soft delete, minding low participation.) @LionFosset, please continue to improve the article with new reliable sources here—if the artist continues to receive coverage, we can eventually move back to mainspace. czar 03:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Kogonada

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

The only actual source is ref 15. Otherwise we have the promotional interview in ref 3, whose preface claims he's important because he's had work "commissioned work from the Criterion Collection and the British Film Institute"-- Everything else is either a links to his own work, or the refs from 9 thru 14, cited to show that other people also produce video essays on film. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Video essays are becoming more and more significant as a new form of criticism and analysis for film and television critics, which is why I created an article about one of the more notable video essayists in the filmmaking community other than Kevin B. Lee, :: kogonada. If I were to create an article about Nelson Carvajal, I might understand contentions of notability, but :: kogonada being praised in the New Yorker by Hilton Als and invited to be part of the jury for the 16th LPA Film Festival (which I admit were only added after this nomination) is not nothing. I'll improve the article and its references, but if you, as well as others, still couldn't find notability for this person, then I respect that, being much more learned than I am about these types of processes and regulations. LionFosset (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Yorker item is a single paragraph in an article about "10 best of the Year", an wide ranging survey of theater and other arts. IUts a very impressive paragraph indeed, nonetheless. The Festival is I think a relatively minor one. See what more you can find. (The article would read less promotional if it were not constructed as a string of quotes, and I'd list notable works of his in a separate section to avoid confusion with the references.) DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever took the time, but I'd prefer not to have a wiki page. All the best, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.138.114 (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If :: kogonada says it to be so, then okay, this article can be deleted. Apologies, :: kogonada, if this isn't an article that was necessary and appropriate to create considering your anonymous identity. I merely wanted to add knowledge to Wikipedia about what I think is becoming a large, important, and essential trend for the filmmaking community: video essays. Thank you for understanding.LionFosset (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the film Columbus^[1] reaches popular acclaim, this page will likely be recreated regardless of :: kogonada's objections, simply from the fascination with someone who chooses to be anonymous yet work with well known actors such as John Cho and Michael Cera. Unless anyone can request a page being removed no matter how notable they are, it seems like it is better to have a passionate editor like LionFosset create the page, rather than whoever comes next. Note that I'm not saying we should ignore :: kogonada's wishes, but if Wikipedia will ignore his wishes later, it is better to keep the page and the work that has already been done. Jason Tracy (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.therepublic.com/2016/08/04/new-columbus-movie-makes-architecture-a-character-in-the-film

My personal preference is that we should keep the page, but simply put "At the request of :: kogonada, a full Wikipedia page will not be created." along with a very brief summary. Jason Tracy (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 02:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was Keep. Arguments that provide evidence that the subject is notable carry more weight than those that argue that her status doesn't necessarily make her notable, and consensus has formed that the GNG is met. Michig (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Amissah-Arthur

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

Spouse of a president or other head of state is usually notable -- but she's the spouse of vice present. The refs are not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies are potentially also notable (we do, frex, have articles about
properly sourced, but is not a claim of notability that confers an exemption from having to source it properly. Delete (or draftify?) without prejudice against recreation if somebody can source it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as such given there's nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 16:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the spouse of some notable figure isn't the pass here. Or is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slu tsu (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The spouse of the vice president of a country has enough formal and informal duties to make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that cover this person primarily and in-depth (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and this person definitely passes
notable, in itself, does not establish notability for that person automatically. However, this article subject clearly has significant references and coverage to establish notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Not only is she in the news as a 2nd Lady enough to pass GNG, but she's just been installed as a queen mother of the Logba-Adzakoe [22]. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple duties and grounds for notability, adequate sources. GNG met. Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per
WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – The subject meets
available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scallie

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

Non encyclopedic -essentially an expanded (and inaccurate) dictionary definition. Self-contradictory, with a not particularly separately notable subject. (Oh, and misspelled.....) Anmccaff (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

weak keep, cleanup, rename. It appears a valid term for a subculture.
talk) 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 02:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete – Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking and creative bending of history by editor(s) of this page: By the 1980s, the 'Liverpool look' (it was rarely called scally back then) went overground… Seriously? And even if it's a legitimate term today,
WP:TOOSOON to get an article beyond dicdef. The fad may be gone already. Or revert to the 2004 version, which was at least entertaining: Scally is a slang term, usually used in Merseyside, to describe Jobless Yobs, who have little or no education, and have committed some type of crime. The typical Scally dresses in Tracksuit bottoms, wears a certain type of trainer or boot, and wears a baseball cap. The term can refer to any type of lowlife, and can include gang members in other parts of Britain. […] Other terms for Scallies are Chavs, Kappa Slappers, Neds, Townies, Kevs, Charvers, Steeks, Spides, Bazzas, Yarcos, Ratboys, Skangers, Scutters, Janners, Stigs, Scallies, Hood Rats. There is an entire website dedicated to these maggots of society (chavscum website) — JFG ^talk 03:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus, the voters failed to agree whether existing coverage can be classified as routine.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability: significant RS coverage cannot be found; advertorial content. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've suggested PROD instead also, if not for the 1st AfD thus it's not a choice; none of this is actually convincing and there's essentially nothing else for substance so delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"Clarizen"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Keep – Meets
copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

(Don't be misled by the "routine"-sounding title of this Forbes article. The article provides significant coverage about the company; only the first paragraph focuses upon funding. The additional five paragraphs do not.)

A Brief Guide to Cloud Computing

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --

talk 02:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: The coverage is still all typical PR-driven industry press, such as:

IDF news service: "Starting this week, Clarizen is dangling a potentially tempting new carrot -- big discounts for Project customers who switch. "Microsoft Project may be a great tool for some people. But for most people, it's just not," said Eran Aloni, vice president of product marketing."
CNet: "Clarizen this week announced that it launched version 3.0 of its online project management tool. Clarizen 3.0 adds a variety of new features, including the option to manage business issues, track expenses, and view Gantt charts."
"Today's project teams have to be mobile whether they know it or not when you factor in telecommuting, off hours technical issues, and every team member seems to be on their own schedule. Recently, Clarizen, an Israel-based project management platform provider launched their new Clarizen Mobile app ( iPhone/Android) as part of their Winter 2015 release."
PC World: product review
"The Clarizen thesis is actually pretty sound – the idea being that when you integrate social engagement across project planning and management tools, you gain more efficiency than would have been seen in the old paradigm where email was the de facto communication channel."

I admit that the coverage is better than some, and it's available across a reasonably wide timespan. But this still feels like a "product / company directory" material, vs an encyclopedia article. We don't have any coverage beyond product news. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had also examined these and they were simply not the needed substance; as with my nomination, this is all still based top closely with the usual, expected and trivial coverage. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. Shamah, David (2011-04-12). "Stellar Startups: An Israeli flag in the cloud". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2016-08-24.
  The article notes:
  Established in Hod Hasharon in 2007 (on the basis of a previously existing Israeli startup), Clarizen has gone on to become a real phenomenon. The company has sales offices in California (development is still done in Israel), and it has become of the most successful Israeli startups in recent years.
  Clarizen has won numerous awards, most recently a “Codie” (issued by the Software and Information Industry Association for excellence in software development within the software industry) in 2010. And it has been a big hit with businesses throughout the world.
  This is a review of the company. David Shamah is a Jerusalem Post staff writer.
2. Grady, Barbara (2007-08-10). "Clarizen launches San Mateo operations". San Mateo County Times. Archived from the original on 2016-08-24. Retrieved 2016-08-24.
  The article notes:
  Avi Nowogrodski launched his software company in 2005 in Tel Aviv, Israel, which he called "the Silicon Valley of the Middle East" and where software engineers are plenty and his heart belongs.
  But Thursday, Nowogrodski's firm, Clarizen Inc., began its first day in its new headquarters in San Mateo.
  ...
  Clarizen's Web-based software, Project Management 2.0, is used by companies that want numerous and often geographically separated people to collaborate on a project. Since it is hosted on the Web, people can tap into it from wherever they are with the proper security codes.
  The software already has 800 customers and 2,500 users — and it hasn't yet been formally released. Two months ago Clarizen released a beta version to test, and three weeks ago the company started taking sales orders for the formal release. He said 30 customers already put in orders.
3. The sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) such as the ABC News article. I consider coverage of a company's product to be about the company itself and contributing to notability.
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Clarizen to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This is still hardly enough as there has been analysis, as it is, of the sources listed above, and these two, while third-party and from known news sources, are still essentially still summarizing what the company is about. We cannot simply improve and keep alone from these 2 sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above coverage is not sufficient either. Jerusalem Post article is local coverage; it's an article based on the interview with the founder, so not entirely independent. San Mateo New is routine local coverage about a company office opening. This confirms that the company exists, but is hardly sufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see all the sources as being overly contaminated with press release material. Tho the Jerusalem Post is a paper of international importance, even it can still cover local companies in a promotional manner. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen is based in San Mateo, California, United States. It was founded in Hod HaSharon, which is 69.9 km from Jerusalem. Clarizen is not a local company to The Jerusalem Post. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a situation where there are sources, and I can't be too upset if the decision goes the other way. However, I end up in the delete camp because I agree the sourcing really is just reconstituted press release material that is of little use in building a substantive article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Little, Brown Book Group (which published the book A Brief Guide to Cloud Computing), ABC News, CNET, TechRepublic, The Jerusalem Post, and San Mateo County Times all provide significant coverage of the subject. I don't think it is fair to say they are all "just reconstituted press release material that is of little use in building a substantive article". They provide many facts about the company's history that could be used to write a good encyclopedia article.

Cunard (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly....information such as their offered services, where their company locations and offices are located , awards and information about its clients and customers. Only other clients and investors want to know about this. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you expect in a company article?

The sources

Codie award in 2010. (source)

Clarizen moved its headquarters to San Mateo, California, in 2007. (source)

The company moved from Israel to California because most of the company's customers are based in the United States. (source)

In 2007, Clarizen's Web-based software, Project Management 2.0, had 800 customers and 2,500 users. (source)

In August 2007, Clarizen had 50 employees in Israel and six in San Mateo. (source)

"Clarizen offers a SaaS project-management application that can be collaboratively used to manage anything from one-off projects to resources, timesheets, budgets, or expenses. The application displays a linear timeline or 'roadmap' of each project with project progress and projected completion dates." (book source)

In 2014, the company had a $35 million venture funding round led by Goldman Sachs. (source)

By 2014, the company had raised $90 million. (source)

In 2014, the company had 120 employees. (source)

In 2014, the company had over 2,000 customers in 76 countries, including Electronic Arts and Sony. (source)

Some of this information is already in the Wikipedia article. The facts about the company's history I have provided here contradict Xymmax's assertion that the sources are "little use in building a substantive article".

Cunard (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Avinoam Nowogrodski is the co-founder and CEO of Clarizen. (source)

Routine coverage and a non-notable individual (no article). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen's customers in 2011 included NASA, Hertz, Lenovo, Fujitsu, UPS, GE Healthcare and NBC. (source)

According to the company: "Although most of Clarizen’s clients are smaller, Nowogrodski says, “we have a good number of larger companies that based their management systems on Clarizen as well. We have about 200 new companies joining us every day.” Followed by: "Indeed, the roster of companies big and small companies that use Clarizen for some or all of their projects is quite impressive, and it includes NASA, Hertz, Lenovo, Fujitsu, UPS, GE Healthcare and NBC, to mention a few." K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen was established in Hod Hasharon, Israel, in 2007. (source)

Routine coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen is based on a previously existing Israeli startup. (source)

So? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen won the

Codie award in 2010. (source

)

Industry award. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarizen moved its headquarters to San Mateo, California, in 2007. (source)

Routine corporate news. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company moved from Israel to California because most of the company's customers are based in the United States. (source)

Routine corporate news. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, Clarizen's Web-based software, Project Management 2.0, had 800 customers and 2,500 users. (source)

According to the company. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I added some inline commentary above. This is (mostly) routine corporate news, and does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. This all reads like corporate directory, only of interest to a company's prospective customers and investors. Wikipedia is written for general audience, and I don't see any content above that would be interesting or important to the general audience. The company exists, it has customers and investors, and it's developing a product. That's all routine information which is available on the company's website. A wiki article is not required; also see
WP:WEBHOST. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What information do you expect in a company article that is not present here? Cunard (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- my general approach is to assess whether a Wiki article provides information that cannot be found on the company website. In the case of the information above, all of this (customers, office moves, the name of the CEO, funding rounds) can be found on Clarizen's website and an encyclopedia article is redundant, or, worse, serves as a promotional vehicle. In general, small private companies tend to be non-notable (by encyclopedia standards) unless they have invented a new market, have a cult following for their products, have been involved in a major scandal or are preparing for an IPO (but by this point, they are probably not small). Hope this helps clarify my position. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only routine corporate information; reads like a press release with no real notability. Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided seem to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate the user's considerations of GNG, I wonder if they actually took to mind the comments that analyzed those exact sources, shoeing they were in fact simply PR. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Toledo Inline Hockey League

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

Non-notable localized junior hockey league that fails

WP:ORG. Might be speedable as it doesnt even bother to claim notability, simply one of the "best" in the state for a very minor sport. Prevan (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability and the sourcing is not there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus has arisen at this time. Perhaps this should be revisited in a few months to determine if the event has received ongoing coverage and analysis as per
WP:NOTNEWS is applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

2016 Mukilteo shooting

2016 Mukilteo shooting (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)

Just another shooting with a few casualties that violates
WP:NOTNEWS. Prevan (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I fail to see the notability of this incident. Parsley Man (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A deranged individual got his hands on a gun and went on a shooting rampage - an all-too-common headline. He had a motive, there was a trial, discussion of the victims' lives, mourning, official statements, reconstruction of the massacre. Tragic, no doubt. But as cynical as it sounds, there really is no indication of the sort of enduring notability needed to pass
WP:NOTNEWS. Thus, delete. GAB^gab 01:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Lots of coverage, after-effects, and other shootings with the same death toll have articles.
talk) 03:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that
Beejsterb is the creator of this article. Parsley Man (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - a) there is no enduring coverage to surpass the NOTNEWS benchmark b) what exactly are those aftereffects? I'm seeing none to speak of c)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GAB^gab 01:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has obtained international news coverage, and one article about aftereffects. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much local and 'in other news' coverage, and the 'international' coverage isn't there as The Daily Mail is very low as a trusted source as their story is just 'wire service regurgitation'. chatter) 04:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:NOTNEWS Individual crimes are not usually notable.--Savonneux (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - per good sourcing, per extensive international coverage. most of the delete-reasoning is based on IDONTLIKEIT.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no one has said that.--Savonneux (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- trying to figure out why we wouldn't. 4 people were killed. It's an event that happened. It's not hurting anything, and doesn't 'clearly' violate anything.El cid, el campeador (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have an essay about that
WP:HURT--Savonneux (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Keep incident is notable and has potential developing through the time . Sophonore (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kristijh (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why the article should be kept?

Comment - The news coverage has pretty much stopped right now. There doesn't seem to be any outstanding motive for the shooter; probably just a run-of-the-mill nutcase. Parsley Man (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –
Talk to me 01:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One FM 94.0

One FM 94.0 (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)

Small community radio station. PROD was removed by creator but no external references have subsequently been provided. Searches reveal no good refs to notability. Fails
WP:GNG Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 09:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article. Sourcing is a problem, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty references by the organizations that issue licenses and operate the station's broadcasting was included in the article. Also, relevant online media, such as website has been included. Reference to license number and actual existence included in the article. This article will grow as more information becomes available, such as listenership figures etc. Unless Velella lives in the area, it's a bit pre-mature to assume that the station is 'small'
MediaNowSA (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is rarely productive to challenge the competence of another editor without very good grounds - such claims can sometimes rebound on the claimant. The range of knowledge and skills possessed by Wikipedia editors can sometimes surprise the inexperienced. However this demonstrates the geographic area covered - which is small. The lack of any mention of radiated power, the lack of inclusion of this station in any of the standard listings of Radio stations in South Africa and its designation as a Community radio all suggest the correct epithet is "very small" . I erred on the side of caution and opted for "small". And do I know the area ? Yes I do. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The base notability claims that a radio station has to meet to pass
conflict of interest of some kind, but that's not a dealbreaker in and of itself if the problems with the article are repairable. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment-
WP:NMEDIA is only an essay and not policy however, even adopting that as a guideline, what it actually says is " Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." and the mention of history is a reference to the earlier phrase "However, radio stations tend to have long histories ....". This station does not meet these criteria as it is very new. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 09:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
All of Wikipedia's notability criteria are essays or guidelines rather than "policy", as such — but that fact doesn't make them non-binding, because
reliably sourceable as meeting the two conditions, having a broadcast license and originating at least some of its own programming, then it has established its broadcast history, and is permanently notable, the moment its transmitter is actually transmitting a signal. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry but that that is not what WP:MEDIA says. That may be your interpretation, but that is not what the words mean to me. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 16:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I was directly involved in the writing of NMEDIA — so I'm not just expressing an "interpretation" or an "opinion", but stating the plain and simple facts of what the document was designed to say and mean and communicate. The document may obviously need to be reworded for improved clarity, as policy and guideline documents often do, if you're getting something different out of it than what was intended — but I'm completely correct on the facts of how it's meant to be understood, because I was there for the original discussions: the intended meaning of "establishment" was "set up and operating", not "has distinguished itself as an especially elite member of its class of topic". Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt your expertise, but the guidance is the guidance as written which is what we work to, whether poorly drafted or not. The example given "....even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years." makes is quite clear what "established " is intended to mean here. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 18:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and the definition of "established" that I gave is the definition of "established" that it fits. And if there's a gap between a notability guideline's intentions and one reader's interpretation of it, that does not give the reader's interpretation a trump card over the intention just because it's possible to read it that way — "the guidance is the guidance as written" does not imbue your position with the crown of righteousness just because you choose one potential interpretation over another of what's written, when both interpretations flow equally directly from "the guidance as written". It's not as if I'm making up some weird personal definition of "established" here — it's a standard real-world definition of the word, and it's the one that was intended, so the fact that the word also happens to have a more restrictive definition does not automatically make you right and me wrong about what NMEDIA means "as written". Guidelines can, in fact, be reworded and rewritten for clarity when necessary, such as when a reader misinterprets the intention or when other new considerations come along. So until such time as a consensus can be established that your interpretation should become the new rule going forward, the meaning of "established" that was intended by the drafters of the document, and has always been the consensus position until now, trumps the more restrictive definitions that some editors might choose to apply. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharad Shetty

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sharad Shetty (2nd nomination)

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

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

This article has been contested for deletion because as rightly pointed out by IP:182.59.251.80 edits on 24 July, 2016; the article relies on two links and provides no useful information to the public. Also I do not see the notability as to why it should be on Wikipedia. Check the article talk page for deletion requests as well PageImp (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not notable person. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per
WP:BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Junior Hockey League

Great Lakes Junior Hockey League (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 defunct local junior hockey league. No evidence of meeting
WP:GNG, all sources avaliable are non independent of the subject Prevan (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Just because it is defunct does not mean the notability it most definitely had during the time it played is lost. And all 3 of the sources on the page are independent despite the claims of the nom. They are all independent publications talking about the league. Meets
WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually looking at Google, it seems the similar sounding Great Lakes Hockey League (adult) is notable, but not the completely different junior league which is the subject of this AFD. Can you explain how the three sources are considered "significant coverage" for GNG, or even reliable? The first source is borderline, it covers the subject at significant length but is it really independent of the coverage as it's the official publication of the USA junior hockey league. The second source is dead. The third source is a passing mention discussing one of the teams in the league playing in the arena. That's not enough for GNG. Prevan (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the publication isn't written by the league itself it is independent, its a publication for junior hockey as a whole. The second source is not dead, works perfectly fine for me. Secondly, junior leagues will have been covered in all the papers in all the cities it had teams in. It would be exceedingly rare for a junior league in this area of the world to not be covered, to the point it would almost be notable for not being covered (if that were a thing). -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly weak) Both the first and second sources are independent from the league and covers a couple of aspects of the league (which seems to meet
WP:GNG at the bare minimum standards). I added the third to confirm that it did switch to inline when the majority of teams left with the change to AAU sanctioning. Otherwise it was very difficult to find any non-dead sources for a rather low-level league (Junior C is just not as well covered in the US as in Canada). The best sources may be from primary sources as some of the teams still exist in the United States Premier Hockey League and North American 3 Hockey League. But even then the Tier III teams have purged their sites of historical information at random over the years. Yosemiter (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorial content on an unremarkable sports league; insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: "Notability is not temporary" does not take into account that the notability of the subject has not yet been established. According to the available sources, this league is (was) not notable. The mentions are rather trivial, such as from link #2 in the article:

GLJHL Every Team For Themselves May 9, 2012 7:44 AM

The GLJHL is moving to AAU. We have reported on this as well as other sites. TJHN has now learned that teams counted on moving to AAU have recently been in contact with other former GLJHL teams seeking to join the Minnesota Junior Hockey League. These same teams have been contacting other owners seeking to start a new league under AAU that does not include Gerry Lullove as leader of the league.

Interstingly, Mr. Lullove is no longer listed as President of the GLJHL on their website. Matt Lullove is now listed as president of the GLJHL according to the GLJHL website. One can only assume based on the surname that Matt Lullove is the son of Gerry Lullove. TJHN conducted research on Matt Lullove and nothing can be found that would rise to a credible hockey resume allowing Matt Lullove to become president of a junior hockey league. On the surface this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to distance itself from the mistakes leading to the leagues future while the Lullove group retains control of the GLJHL through a new figurehead.

This is insufficient to meet GNG. As far as regional coverage where the leagues had teams in, I would assume that the coverage would be about the teams in question, rather than the league as a whole. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Which of the three sources are primary? Two are independent journals (USA Junior Hockey Magazine and TJHN) that focus specifically on junior hockey. Why would an independent journal, TJHN, (which is not regional and covers all junior hockey and highly critical of low-level junior hockey) with a focus on a certain subject not be considered a secondary source? The third (which could be considered primary on the team mentioned) is just there to confirm that the league did not just fold but instead attempted to switch from ice hockey to roller hockey. That said, I already stated that even as junior hockey goes this league was barely notable and more likely is notable for being the origin of current teams in other notable leagues such as the United States Premier Hockey League and the North American 3 Hockey League via the now defunct Minnesota Junior Hockey League. Yosemiter (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've self corrected to state that the sources are insufficient and that the coverage is rather trivial, especially link #2, just reporting on gossip. The GNG states "multiple" reliable sources are required, so here we have one (although judging by the headline it was more along the lies of "The league rebrands vying for new markets..."). Separately, these mentions are from specialist industry publications which suggests that the topic is not yet interesting to the society at large. So overall, this coverage seems rather sparse to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Per DJsasso. Junior leagues are considered notable by the hockey project, and this league is no exception. Meets GNG. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Junior leagues are notable and notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DJSasso's reasoning and arguments as a notable historical junior ice hockey league. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bodmin#Bodmin_Borough_Police. Existing section. Nothing sourced to merge. No sources or policy-backed rationale for keeping. czar 21:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodmin Borough Police

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

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

No evidence of notability. One of 178 police forces in the UK between 1836 and 1866, this was a two-man police force. Every village in every country has or had similar police forces, nothing special or exceptional about this one. Routine coverage of the Bodmin police doing something during these thirty years is bound to exist, but specific indepth coverage seems to be lacking.
Fram (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cornwall County Constabulary. Unreferenced, this article makes no claim of notability. I don't think there will ever be enough sources about this short-lived minor police force to pass GNG. This indicates the local police were subsumed into the county police which is where the subject can be addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree. I believe all Britain's former municipal forces are notable enough for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
This is Wikipedia, not bureaucratipedia. Nothing is set in stone and opinions do count on AfD. You and I have both surely been here long enough to know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions which boil down to ILIKEIT, a claim of "notable enough" without any evidence to support this, normally don't count in AfD and are routinely dismissed by closing admins. Claims that something is
Fram (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a hint, but issuing such "advice" to a fellow admin and long-term editor may be taken as somewhat patronising! I know how WP works as well as you do and if I wish to express an opinion I shall most certainly do so. I do not require the nominator to inform me what is or is not going to be dismissed by the closing admin (and neither does the closing admin). Thank you for your time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you would dismiss your own "keep" if you were the closing admin. And giving advice should be done indiscriminately of who the advisee is, there are enough examples of long-term editors not knowing (or caring about) some policies and guidelines, and letting these sit unchallenged only because they are e.g. an admin gives a very bad impression to less experienced editors, who may either then follow the poor example or don't understand why their opinion would be challenged and/or dismissed, while that of an admin would be left alone.
Fram (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep -- A redirect to the county constabulary seems inappropriate, despite its later merger to it. It might be more appropriate to merge to Bodmin Borough Council, as it was its watch committee that was the police authority, or rather since we do not seem to have such an article Bodmin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the lack of input despite relisting, this is a
WP:SOFTDELETE Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Lovers (2001 TV series)

Lovers (2001 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG; search provides only minor mentions, not in reliable sources. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 12:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Suzuki RM series

Suzuki RM series (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 motorcycle series. I have originally added a reference on 15 November 2015, which I realized to be unreliable.
talk) 19:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So a motorcycle in production for 37 years has absolutely no coverage? And it was used for racing, and had no coverage? I find that hard to believe. ···
Join WP Japan! 23:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should note that I do not follow motorcycles at this point in my life, but I'm sure someone out there can scrape up some references for use in the article. As I wrote above, a motorcycle in production for 37 years has to have some coverage in third party publications. Especially since it was regularly used for racing. ···
Join WP Japan! 19:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (
WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Suzuki RM85

Suzuki RM85 (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 motocross motorcycle. This is part of the
talk) 19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus has appeared, and there is no point in further relisting DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperPage

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/SkyscraperPage (4th nomination)

SkyscraperPage (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 and Salt please especially considering the last AfD was closed as Deleted, as (1) the current links are simply mere mentions actually and then my searches aren't finding anything actually better aside from mentions. Notifying the only still active AfDers Stifle and Acroterion. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt for good measure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Very weak delete, I think the fact that it's spun as a forum first and foremost gives it a bad rap. It is a data mining information website that includes illustrations of its subjects. Also what does it hurt? (A general inclusionist point to note) B137 (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The previous AfD is nine years old, so referring to it seems, erm, out-of-date. On the other hand, the "keep" arguments from the 1st & 2nd AfD are even more pronounced now. Note that there are articles on 8 other Wikipedias and then there is the template {{
WP:OSE notwithstanding, deleting an article about such a widely used website seems unhelpful. Also: shouldn't Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers have been notified? They list that site under "Resources". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – SkyscraperPage and SkyscraperCity (the larger of the two) repeatedly come up for deletion and one is kept and one is tossed for generally weak and arbitrary reasons. I had suggested merging the two with Skyscraper, but no one found them useful enough to one-liner them on that page - also for arbitrary reasons. Both these sites are like Wikipedia - they are encyclopedias of the worlds skyscrapers and they are referenced in many publications and in articles, here. Are there third party citations beyond footnoting Skyscraper photos and basic specifications, no. Are these "encyclopedias" more encyclopedic than who got 6th place on America's got talent? At the very least, we should treat the sites equally.

Merge with Skyscraper – There is little to write about this website (either one) but it probably deserve mention somewhere on Wikipedia. I'd open a new subsection on Skyscraper, or if that seems like too much, list both sites as resources on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.205.145 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are a ton of sources which cite this, which would help notability if it were a publication, but there's just not all that much about it that I can find. It's a difficult search, though, because there are just so many hits. I did find bits at BBC, Globe and Mail, and Gainesville Sun... but that doesn't seem like quite enough. It's ubiquitous enough that I'd like to see more sources rather than delete, but can't sufficiently substantiate a keep !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these are more convincing, as they discuss the site itself, i.e. Globe & Mail, but I'm still not sure this amounts to an encyclopedic notability, rather than a curio being discussed as a niche topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the hits on even a basic news search [23] are persuasive. Note that not merely are the images produces by the site reproduced, but that the site is credited with driving news cycles on new high-rise development in stories like this [24] and this [25]. Also, some of the stories already on the page provide RS info about this website.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find these links persuasive. The forum is mentioned / cited to in the press, but not discussed as an entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ChicagoBusiness link is simply a few paragraphs and it's not actually convincing, the same can be said for the DJCOregon which is simply guiding through what there all is to say about the company, but not substance, it also seems like a questionable source given it hints at local-focused PR. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - Considering the previous AfDs, this is not an easy clpse thus this is either best relisted or at least closed (but not as Keep given there is not a significant amount confidently voting as such) and renominated may be best. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was persuaded by the NYTimes story already on the page "skyscraperpage.com, a Web site that tracks major buildings around the world," this validates the site and provides a useful description of it. (This page gets ~800 hits a month; users apparently want to know what SkyscraperPage is.]] Page is validated by the use of info from this site in books on urban development and planning [26] by authors including Edward Relph. There is too much self-sourcing, but there is sufficient reliable, secondary sourcing to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 00:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Pooja Gor

Pooja Gor (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)

Not notable, Fails
GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She has played lead roles in two television shows (WP:NACTOR. Sources to confirm [27][28][29] - Managerarc™^talk 11:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Keep as has had leading roles and has coverage identified by the last poster so that
WP:BASIC is met. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iosif Poursanidis

Iosif Poursanidis (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)

Advertorially toned
conflict of interest issue. While there's enough here that he could qualify for an article if it were sourced properly, nothing claimed here gives him an inclusion freebie if Facebook and LinkedIn and Soundcloud are the best sources you can come up with. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here that I can see. Agree totally with the proposal. Derek Andrews (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 02:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Greater China

List of cities in Greater China (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)

Short and outdated list(s), everything in the list(s) is already covered by
| Talk 15:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Leaving the nonexistent, red-linked Geography delsort in place. Perhaps a new delsort category could be created. Geography is important. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The short and outdated are not an issue, but there is no need for this to exist as a list. It is not even a single list but two, or two and a bit, of things that are not really comparable; cities in the People’s Republic are more regions than traditional cities. Hong Kong and Macau are not cities but contain them. As it is the list is OR and fails
WP:LISTN, as can be seen from the sources which do not discuss the list as a whole but the separate sub-lists.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
| Talk 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 01:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. These are two separate countries, no matter what the People's Republic thinks/lusts for, and there are already lists for both. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page duplicates two other lists. Some other users have wanted the article to be deleted in the past. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC) The only link to it in the article namespace is in a hatnote at List of cities in China. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaramakrishnan Murali

Sivaramakrishnan Murali (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)

Heavy promotional article, will need a complete rewrite to meet our standards. I can't establish the subject passes
WP:PROF. Solomon 7968 16:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There are ~~decent~~ some Gbooks and Gscholar results. Problem is, this article has been so devotedly created and crafted by SPA promotional editor User:Harischandra over 7 years -- who is clearly Murali himself or someone affiliated -- that I wonder of
talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Gscholar cites are almost non-existent. Fails
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
talk 01:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. Brandon (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Fuchsia

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

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

Just a supposed new operating system from Google in the early stages of development, without relevant information.
talk) 01:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable, lots of coverage, code available. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable product from a notable company, good sources Ahmed (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly notable. Tons of press. --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 22:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just putting in my vote here. Reasons as aboves. Fuchsia is no hoax and is no rumor. Yes there are some speculations (such as Google will use it to replace Linux in all its OS'es, etc.,etc.), but Fuchsia is a real and notable project nonetheless. --Ferdi Zebua (username: Lemi4) (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going with "Keep" here. I was reading about it elsewhere, and came to Wikipedia to find more about it, hoping for more detail than is currently in the article. The only caveat I have is that most of the external coverage I see is in the last week or so, so it's possible that this might be a case of
WP:NOTNEWS. But I'd rather err on the side of retention. If it turns out to have just been newsworthy rather than notable in the long run, we can always revisit it for deletion in another six months or so. TJRC (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep per coverage in The Register [30] and elsewhere, this is already clearly a substantial Google project with encyclopedic importance.
talk) 06:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep quoting above "lots of coverage, code available", "Notable product from a notable company" Mathiastck (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a confirmably real (source is available) and serious operating system project of a large company. --ilmaisin (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although delete and merge together have a slight edge over keep, we don't have consensus here. Merger discussions can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 19:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R/The Donald

R/The Donald (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)

PROD removed. I doubt this warrants having its own article at this point, and from what I can see, we don't even know for sure if Donald Trump is really involved or it's just satire.
talk) 11:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

lol, once again this subreddit has been mentioned by several reputable news sources, and has even been visited by donald trump himself. at this point it is the largest discussion hub for the candidate and deleting the article would only be censoring the hub. Kabahaly (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:
AfD
.

Delete: Non-noteworthy. Might bear passing mention in controversial Reddit communities, but not its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: controversial reddit communities include blatantly racist, or sexist, or generally bigoted ones. to list this article as one of the controversial communities is like saying that donald trump is a racist or sexist, which goes against wikipedia's neutral POV Kabahaly (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely bears mention in
Controversial Reddit Communities, as it is a large source of controversy on Reddit. It says nothing about Trump himself, just the community. IanSan5653 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: the community that donald trump himself mentioned and condoned?

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - At this point, there doesn't appear to be enough to justify its own article. That could change, but for now, smerge and delete. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see that anyone about has mentioned a lack of existing sources, of which there appear to be a good number. Instead, most of the comments fall into a basic
"just not notable" pattern without a proper rationale. The article already has two sources: "How r/the_donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate" (Vice) and "Donald Trump to Drop In on Reddit, Where He's Already a Phenomenon"
(NBC). In addition to that, I've found the following:
"Active Revolt Against Reddit’s CEO" (Vice) - This is definitely focused on the subreddit itself, not Trump.

"Donald Trump to host Reddit AMA" (CNN) - Brief mention

"From the media to moon landings: Trump takes questions in Reddit AMA" (The Guardian) - About the AMA, but gets into some details of the workings of the subreddit.

"Welcome to the Bizarro World of Trump Supporters on Reddit" (Wired) - Totally focused on the subreddit.

"Some Donald Trump Supporters Are Now Calling Him ‘God Emperor’" (The Huffington Post) - Reporting on events in the subreddit, with some history.

So that's seven sources total, four of which are detailed profiles of the subreddit. That's enough to warrant inclusion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreed. Kabahaly (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though personal preference wants a merge and redirect to
(talk to me) 15:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: It's only notable in the context of the current US presidential campaign. Every article about it (all 3 of them, by my count) is tied to Trump as a candidate. I don't see how anyone could add anything to the current page from reliable sources that isn't already there, so a fully fleshed-out article appears to be impossible. Rockypedia (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing at all suggestive of its attachments en independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be better dealt with on other pages. Artw (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the 2016 Trump presidential campaign page, there are sources, definitely enough for inclusion on another article, but maybe not on its own. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rockypedia.
Lepricavark (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
flyer 02:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note that I explicitly oppose a merger, since sources that have been presented allow for a potentially much longer article than what we have now.
flyer 04:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – The topic meets
Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § /r/The_Donald subreddit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sources available via
WP:GNG. Also no problem with merger though. Lizzymartin (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:NOPAGE. Having sources doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. This is part of the campaign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge into the Trump candidacy article. The sourcing and information provided above show that there is enough for it to meet
WP:GNG. Definitely needs to be retained in some fashion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As
WP:GNG isn't the be all and end all of notability. Graham (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuckey and Murray

Stuckey and Murray (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'm not familiar with the field, so I'm not sure whether these two meet the criteria of
self-promotion. bender235 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 19:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence for meeting
WP:ARTIST (their reviews don't meet 4c), and the article doesn't claim any. For GNG, there are three independent RS with nontrivial coverage available: reviews in the Post & Courier, Charleston City Paper (Cohen) and CCP (Oyer). (There's more in their press clippings, but nothing substantial as far as I can see).) These sources do not have enough depth of coverage to verify basic encyclopedic information like their location, major career events, and influence within their field. FourViolas (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I guess. Maybe. It's borderline. The Charleston City Paper says "videos like 'Awkward Sex' and 'Auto Phone Sex' (not related) have amassed millions of views" on YouTube. If that's true, doesn't that show evidence of meeting
WP:ENT #2, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"? Not sure, maybe millions of views is common. If it is common, they might not make the cut. The Post & Courier review is a plus, but the 'Charleston City Paper is not worth much, so you probably don't have multiple in-depth references. It does look like a promotional article. I dunno, I better stop before I talk myself out of my vote. Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to 2015 Copenhagen shootings#Perpetrator. MBisanz ^talk 12:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein

Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein (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)

Per
WP:PERPETRATOR, this is too small for a main article on El-Hussein, and he doesn't seem too particularly noteworthy to deserve an article of his own. Everything is already covered in the "Perpetrator" section of the 2015 Copenhagen shootings article. If there is anything missed there that is already being covered in this article, it can simply just be merged into the shootings article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per
categorized {{R to section}}. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect per nom and Sam Sailor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to 2015 Copenhagen shootings#Perpetrator. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep I searched him before agreeing with the redirect. (target article is not short, so there is some argument for keeping in that.) This murderer is back in the news because of where/by whom he was buried [31]. [32] More to the point is the fact that there was so much more interest in him than the article as it now stands reveals. see searches [33], and, especially here [34] that search is especially persuasive since there is a new focus on radicalization of young, thuggish, 2nd and 3rd generations Muslim youth in Europe (see this week's WSJ article [35]) and his case is coming up in some of that coverage, as an example of a phenomenon in which secular juveniles get thrown in prison for petty crimes, or low-end gang activity, and emerge radicalized. Merging is premature, and a potential loss of material as per
WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Richie

Sofia Richie (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)

Procedural nomination. Subject's notability has been questioned. Adam9007 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sofia Richie herself does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to~~ chatter) 06:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm convinced per Tenbrae and FourViolas; I change my rationale to delete, but will stand by the salting of the title (without prejudice to re-creation if she reaches
chatter) 23:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not sure why we would even want to redirect to Lionel Ritchie#Family since we don't do that for other non-notable children of famous people. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete She is not a
WP:GNG fails. FourViolas (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Fine with salting it per
It seems likely she'll cross the GNG threshold within a few years with some mainstream coverage, and the certain fanbase's ire will fade soon enough. FourViolas (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Just modified my rationale a little; I have no issue with re-creation once good sourcing and sane profiles come in for the subject if they earn true notability, but keep it frozen for now. chatter) 08:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to
WP:N#TEMP, I agree with Tenebrae. I proposed a speedy deletion before but it got removed. I don't see Sofia Richie meeting any of the requirements for notability. AjayTO (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_August_15&oldid=1142623658"~~