Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 December	16 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Per the late provided sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foresight Institute

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

Can't find major coverage in unaffiliated sources on Google. Seems like a non-notable think tank. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could find some without having to look long: [1], [2], [3], [4], ... --Fixuture (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe, fringe, passing mention, press release - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - apart from this article being almost entirely sourced to primary sources, I couldn't find any sources that didn't fall foul of
WP:FRIND - nobody outside its particular piece of the fringe appears to be interested - David Gerard (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. The Foresight Institute is a venerable fixture of the transhumanist community.--Davidcpearce (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs sources for that - there's little evidence of non-fringe coverage - David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "keep but improve" itself means "this is currently unacceptable and is best removed" and it's clear this is still an advertisement, hence WP:NOT applies, enough said. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Countless entries in Wikipedia aren't as notable as the Foresight Institute. The reader who wants to know more about the organization that awards the Feynman prize, for example, deserves a balanced and informative entry. (cf. http://news.mit.edu/2016/markus-buehler-awarded-foresight-institute-feynman-prize-0524 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foresight_Institute_Feynman_Prize_in_Nanotechnology)--Davidcpearce (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fortunately, you'll be pleased to hear that
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a fairly consistently losing argument in an AFD - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - But that's the point, we shouldn't need to waste an insane number of hours discussing what is and isn't "notable" - which ultimately turns on philosophical as well as factual issues. Even if one regards transhumanism as fringe - and no more notable than, say, tiddlywinks - if a Wikipedia editor is kind enough to add informative entries on the history, currents and controversies of the diverse tiddlywink organisations, then great! In the case of the Foresight Institute, however, its work and standing predate the contemporary transhumanist movement.--Davidcpearce (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a good venue to debate the merits or viability of the concept of notability. It grounds discussions such as this one and while you're free to argue to keep per
        WP:IAR, ultimately the subject is whether there has been ~"significant coverage in reliable sources" (according to precedent of how those terms are defined). The way to change minds is to add links to coverage that is not connected to the institute, published in reliable mainstream or academic sources, and goes into some level of detail about the institute. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Keep As it is now, all the references are primary, which is obviously not acceptable. Since the organization is old (founded 1986), many of the references are in book form or otherwise not readily Googleable. I'll add these to the article over the next few hours. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:9043:C275:6FB:FBD3 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, references added. "Nano-Hype" (Berube) and "The Visioneers" (McCray) go into a ton more detail, so it'd be easy to expand further if anyone wants to write it all up. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:9043:C275:6FB:FBD3 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes
WP:GNG: the subject of a San Francisco Weekly article, covered in several places throughout The Visioneers (Princeton University Press), covered in several places in Toward a New Dimension (Oxford University Press), it has its own entry in the Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Society (SAGE), it's the subject of a section in Nanotechnology (CRC Press [Taylor & Francis]), subject of a section in Nano-Hype (Prometheus)... this isn't even counting the less substantial articles here and there covering the Feynman prize. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. Hang googles (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient significant information and referneces. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets
available sources, such as those provided above by Rhododendrites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 23 December 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 22:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Gray (Canadian Band)

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

Does not appear to be a notable band. Searching for hits resulted mostly in false positives about other bands also called "Dorian Gray", but narrowing it down to "Dorian Gray Canada" or including its band members in my searches failed to find much of use. Either way, this band lacks coverage in reliable sources.

csdnew 02:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

csd new 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Try searching Dorian Gray St. Catharines Band. A lot comes up. Articles in all the news papers and Exclaim! Seem reliable to me. Kind of hard to find by just searching Dorian Gray as the band is named after a famous character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalcore11 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
reliable source coverage to support the passage of those criteria, for an article to become earned. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when those conditions can be met, but there's just not enough substance or sourcing yet to get them an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 15 December 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 and it's good to see a

WP:RM discussion for settling on the title, since that seems to be somewhat contentious. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016

)

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

Highly problematic article, vehicle for all sorts of partisan interventions, anything legitimate should be incorporated in the main article on this election. PatGallacher (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we want to delete articles because they might be a target for "partisan interventions", we might as well delete every political-related article on Wikipedia, including those on politicians.(seen Barack Obama's edit history lately?) From what I know there have been no such issues with the page at this moment. The article about the election is already lengthy and this would get buried in it. This is about a very unusual occurrence which is receiving a great deal of attention and deserves a separate page. I would support a merge if it was the only option vs. outright deletion, but I don't think that should happen either. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a separate and noteworthy issue which deserves distinct treatment. Section on History of Faithless Electors could be strengthened. "Partisan interventions" can be dealt with as they arise. -- Velocipedus (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have good enough sourcing to establish notability. It's even got international coverage: [5] from The Independent and [6] from News.com.au. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced and easily passes the notability threshold. POV problems, actual and potential, can and should be dealt with via normal collaborative editing, not through outright deletion of the article. —Psychonaut (talk)
Speedy Keep because page is clearly
notable. ProgrammingNerd (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep. It mentioned by hundreds of sources so it merits an article. The article does need some work on neutrality. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Electoral College is playing a uniquely prominent role this election cycle, and faithless (or conscientious) electors have as of this writing litigated the matter in California, Washington, and Colorado, and have lost in all three states. Certainly notable already both politically and constitutionally whatever comes down on Monday. kencf0618 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of
WP:GNG. Any partisan material can be edited. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Notable enough as viewed by coverage, and wanting more depth than could be reasonably allowed for in the full article on the election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most definitely notable. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have articles like this for the many other presidential elections that had faithless electors. Instead we have, simply and appropriately, notes or small subsections in the articles for those elections. After Monday, this topic will be nothing more than trivia. Earthscent (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthscent: The reason we don't is because organized efforts to encourage faithlessness are unheard of, and this is recieving significant coverage. This is also developing some case law that did not exist before. This will still be notable even after a likely Trump win. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild speculation by the media makes those media sources unreliable. Only one Republican elector has indicated he will be faithless. That is not enough to create an article. Earthscent (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we have an extensive one. Two electors resigned rather than vote, and Lessig says there could be 20-30 more It may not end up that way most likely but it is still notable and should not be buried in the larger article. As I indicated, we are also seeing some case law in this area, which is new and relevant to the future. Deleting this would be short sighted. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been any election in modern history with anywhere near the number of

WP:RS

discussing an effort to organize faithless electors. This year's effort is clearly notable. --19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SNOW Keep - gobs of sources, and will likely continue to be relevant even after the electoral college votes. Can we get a SNOW closure? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:POVTITLE. We don't title articles about a group with the name the group's enemies use to smear them. "Faithless" is obviously a pejorative, and is prejudiced in the controversy involved. With any other group we would name the article with the name the group uses for themselves, except possibly when there is some other name that is universally more common. The awkward mouthful "Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016" is not a common term, whereas Hamilton Electors is in wide use, per article naming convention. The traditional term Faithless elector also fails to encompass electors in the 2016 election who have taken action other than changing their vote, such as resignation, public commentary, or seeking intelligence briefings on the email hacking. Hamilton Elector encompasses all electors in this general category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

"Hamilton Electors" is not a generic term for faithless electors, it's a specific subset thereof. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. I said it is narrow in the sense that it refers only to the 2016 election, and it's broader than 'faithless', because it includes not only those who don't vote as expected. The Hamilton group covers other electors, such as those who resigned, or who have sought information on the email hacking, or done other activity. It also includes the organizers and supporters of this group, who themselves are not electors. All of those goings on have fallen under the name of Hamilton Electors, along with non-electors who are supporters of the movement. When you speak of a faithless lector of the election of 18-- you leave out other people who might have been involved; it refers only to the elector himself. Hamilton Electors is a movement of sorts that sprung into existence during this election. It's the precise, correct term for the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except if you go to Google news results for, say, recent news on Chris Suprun, you'll see plenty of headlines discussing him as a faithless elector, rather than placing him in the Hamilton group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except? No. Not except. You're aware that I already said "some use the term faithless elector". So you've proven what I already acknowledged, that some use of the term exists. What's notable about your Chris Suprun articles is that they are mostly negative news and opinionated attacks on him, or arguments that the Hamilton Electors are wrong/illegal/hopeless/silly etc. Proving what I said: it's the pejorative preferred by the anti-Hamilton Electors POV. We have a policy against POV titles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

policy allows articles about future events that are "scheduled or expected". The vote tomorrow will happen, but how the individuals will vote is not known. Maybe none of them will vote against expectations, and no faithless electors in 2016 will even exist. On the other hand, regardless of what happens tomorrow, the Hamilton Electors moment does exist in the present. It will not evaporate, regardless of how the vote happens tomorrow. The group's ideas, supporters, critics and participants will always be a historical fact that won't be changed by future events. The article Faithless elector, similarly, isn't scoped to cover discussion or activism meant to convince future electors to change their votes. Such a movement is a different topic, and in 2016 the name of that movement is Hamilton Electors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from speculating on future events; it does not prevent us from covering extensively reported speculation in reliable sources. The policy is very clear on this point: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis in original) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This is a notable and unprecedented event in modern US Politics, of historical interest long after the election itself is over. --Aabicus (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Certainly notable, and will continue to be of lasting historical interest in the coming decades. It surely will remain significant in terms of time, and by no means "until Monday only". – Btw: "Hamilton Electors" and others should get a links to this page. – Strong and speedy Keep --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable. -Xbony2 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, with the evidence and reasons presented above, can this be closed as KEEP per
WP:SNOW? --Jersey92 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I hope not. The moment anyone puts up an alternative view, you think it should be cut short before anyone else can consider it? Let it run the usual time so everyone can have their say. All this shouting "strong" and "speedy" and "snow" sounds to me like bluster to distract from a lack of facts and sound reasoning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV portion of the GNG, and as per Gerhardvalentin the topic "will continue to be of lasting historical interest in the coming decades". IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete if there are no faithless electors or if there are only a few. Keep if this turns into something real. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The organized effort turned out to be a joke. Just a big media spectacle. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The organized effort itself is notable, getting much coverage, and resulting in some case law being developed; such an effort is historically rare. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, but potentially rename. I would tend to agree with the arguments for keep, but depending on what happens (ie if there were only to be 3 or less faithless electors) a title change to something like 2016 United States Presidential Electoral College vote might be appropriate. The debates and discussions around this issue have themselves been notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Brianhe: Yes, in light of events I would vote Keep. Thanks, Dunarc (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Easily meets
don't like how the media is handling this issue. The faithless votes have now been cast, so the article itself is not "speculative." szyslak (t) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep - There are several confirmed faithless electors, far more than in any previous US presidential election so it's notable enough. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is a bit disjointed in places (in terms of NPOV or what topics it covers), the topic is noteworthy (all over the news) to an extent far greater than most presidential elections. This article can be improved, renamed, maybe even merged somehow, but none of that is a reason to delete it. Kingdon (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears historically unconventional and is certainly notable. GWA88 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable event, the efforts to unbind electors have significant coverage themselves. Consider merge with
Hamilton Electors.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep for now seems notable as this is historically unprecedented. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: There were 8 in 1912, 27 in 1896, 63 in 1872, 23 in 1836, 32 in 1832, 7 in 1828, 19 in 1796 according to Faithless elector. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kndimov: yeah but this is the first time in quite a while (104 years if the Faithless elector article is correct), although I do agree that it is not the best reason for a keep vote, which is why I said Keep "for now". Inter&anthro (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: Don't misunderstand me, there have been faithless electors far more recently than 1904. I just listed the occasions where there were more than 7. There was 1 in 2004, 1 in 2000, 1 in 1988, 1 in 1976, 1 in 1972, 1 in 1968... etc... -- Kndimov (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The issue's been getting a lot of coverage. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:RS. Are the sources really giving people a reliable understanding of the issues surrounding the electoral college? Srnec (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Number of faithless electors is the most in a very long time so clearly notable. This is much more than just a lone disgruntled elector. Dash77 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This was evidently created to act as a vehicle to delegitimize or prevent the Trump presidency. The plan (also knows as the "CIA coup") backfired. Putin is on the floor laughing. Me too. And congratulations to Faith Spotted Eagle. Have a nice 4 years, America! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, this was a news event that was heavily featured in all kinds of media worldwide. This article easily passes the treshold for notability, and should be kept. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per
WP:V to the point of hilarity, and there will be snowball fights on the Styx before this is a legitimate subject for deletion. (As a footnote, 'faithless elector' is not a perjorative against the electors in question, it is the actual term used to describe 'not voting for the candidate the electoral votes are supposed to go to'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This topic is clearly notable in its own right, and has received extensive news coverage. Mattflaschen - Talk 04:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and strong Keep per everything already said.
talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There were more faithless electors this time than in any previous US presidential election (with the exception of the time when Horace Greeley died after the election but before the electoral college voted). Even more importantly, significant coverage in reliable sources is plentiful. The article should be pruned, though. It's bloated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Historians will be scratching their heads over this election for the next thousand years, including the extreme oddness of this particular meeting of the Electoral College. The article on the election as a whole is already extremely long, so merging this page into it seems like an extremely bad idea. Petronius2 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Significantly notable: we have never had faithless electors in this quantity before, or votes for this many distinct people. This being said, the article should be cleaned up. Intrinsicanomaly (talk) 07:10, 20 December 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) 07:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Dmitriev (born 1966)

Sergey Dmitriev (born 1966) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to meet
Sergey Dmitriev, which now redirects to an article about a completely different person rather than JetBrains. Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. There is not much in the way of substantive coverage to meet
reliable (like this Medium blog post, for example). /wiae /tlk 23:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - He's accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show how they pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Previously speedied at
notability. Cabayi (talk) 17:36, 16 December 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) 07:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siby K Joseph

Siby K Joseph (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)

A dean at a university. Like the majority of academics out there in the world, does not pass
WP:NACADEMIC. I haven't made a thorough search though, but the google scholar stats don't really look promising at this stage. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possibility of passing
WP:Prof[7]. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Delete as nothing here for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 16 December 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) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tumelo Mosaka

Tumelo Mosaka (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 curator. No high-level job in major museums. A few shows only, none of them notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I might respectfully take issue with the proposition that none of his exhibition work has been notable: for example, he seems to have become a go-to expert for press wanting to report on the work of Kehinde Wiley, after having been responsible for an important show of Wiley's work [8][9][10]. Still, I agree that at least so far we have not seen the kind of coverage that would substantiate his notability, in Wikipedian terms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's of course no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else and the article is still too thin for actual independent notability and substance. Account is the usual expected SPA. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 15 December 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) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Mowete

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

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

subject fails
WP:BASIC. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 22 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Dorman

Arabella Dorman (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)

She does not meet the qualifications for visual artists at
WP:CREATIVE--no works in the permanent collections of major museums, no extensive critical discussion of her work. As the claimed notability is only as an artist, I don't see how it justifies an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I don't understand why the nominator hasn't done basic due process of a quick search for sources. The subject clearly meets
WP:CREATIVE #4 criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as I concur with the nomination, there are no museum collections or other convincing factors here; the 2 Guardian links are in fact 1 published one, and the other is still too unconvincing; overall, there's still not the genuine convincing substance for an article. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as the creator of the article, I considered that the coverage in major newspapers, over several years, satisfied
BBC 100 Women was an extra claim to notability. If I can find time I'll add info from Sionk's refs above. PamD 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, passes GNG by a country mile [15] --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are simply mere mentions and listings, from local newspapers. There's no automatic inherited notability because of a BBC PR campaign in which any simple person is being profiled. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has made the claim that the BBC campaign gives automatic notability. Notability is shown by the significant coverage in serious national, not local, newspapers, and the BBC campaign doesn't create some sort of negative notability that can be subtracted from that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we are to go by
WP:CREATIVE then she clearly satisfies point 4(c) with significant critical attention as demonstrated above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The given sources provide bylined articles on the subject's work by prominent art critics, meeting
WP:ARTIST criteria 4(b) and (c) and possibly also criterion 3. (I am also baffled by The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer being dismissed above as "local newspapers". If that is so, then so too are the New York Times, Le Monde, etc., which would evaporate any criterion for distinguishing notable media from the Little Puddlington Advertiser.) AllyD (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The criteria in
WP:CREATIVE are in addition to and not in place of the general notability criteria which the subject meets.[16][17]

Keep. She has received reviews and substantial coverage in all the national broadsheet newspapers of the UK, much of which pre-dates the BBC award. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Arabella_Dorman article clearly meets GNG. The article is well referenced from reliable sources. The 2014 article in The Guardian is a good example of the genre of writing that finds Dorman an interesting subject. All that is required for a standalone article is that a subject is significantly interesting that the media writes about the topic, in this case a person. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥

Keep Clearly passes
WP:GNG with the references already in the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As well as the good sources already used, there have been various articles about her, or partly about her, in
Sunday Times. I've used some to expand the article a little. Lelijg (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The subject fails
talk) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Commment I consider only professional sources as RS for significant criticism onartists., and nominated on that basis. WP:CREATIVE has generally been interpreted as a limitation on the GNG for people in the field, not an alternative. Otherwise it would be meaningless, since anyone with significant critical attention would inherently meet the GNG also. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though that is only your own interpretation. The first sentence of "Basic criteria" and the first two sentences of "Additional criteria" (pertinent to
WP:CREATIVE is more useful for pre-internet people where if, for example, they have works in important collections, we can reasonably presume they were widely written about at some point. Dorman is active in the age of the internet, so we can reasonably expect to find (and have found) a significant number of online sources too. Sionk (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I am here to agree with Sionk. If what you describe is the general interpretation then part of
WP:OUTCOMES does not suggest that artists are commonly expected to require a greater standard. However, like you, I find that many of the additional criteria have redundant material that merely repeats what the general criteria have to say. My interpretation is merely that they are written rather slackly and not that they say the opposite of what is intended. Thincat (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I rather like the idea that in order to be notable-as-an-artist, the sources need to be about the subject in their professional capacity as an artist, and the authors of these sources ought to have credentials to match (they're professional scholars, critics etc.) I'm not a fan of articles that survive an AfD because an otherwise reliable source featured someone in their lifestyle section for something unrelated to their artistic practice. But my understanding so far has been that
talk) 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There's no reason I can think of to impose higher standards of notability on artists. Of course, if the news/book coverage wasn't about their art they would be notable for something else other than art. This is all academic anyway, she's been written about in depth by a variety of serious news sources. Sionk (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I simply want to comment that the Keep votes themselves have in fact acknowledged there's no museum collections and that's what would help, therefore it shows and also shows what we've established before at AfD, museum collections are significant so why simply say "Let's keep it anyway since she's known on the Internet" or "Hey, it's sourced!", even though there's no collections". SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you measure performance artists, sound artists or site-specific artists (such as Dorman)? Some types of art can't be 'collected', so we rely on
WP:GNG (something I know you don't subscribe to). Sionk (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

And because of this
WP:CREATIVE has 4 criterias and not one, on which museum collections is one of, but not the only. Nowadays many modern art museums prefer to work as an exhibition space and not as a collecting organisation. For example, most of Photography Museums do not have permanent collection. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:25, 21 December 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) 07:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neilio

Neilio (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 electronic music producer that fails
WP:GNG. Only cited sources are to Youtube, a forum post, and discogs.com. I have tried to find any reliable sources that discuss Neilio, but I have failed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty straight forward nomination. It seems that the article isn't written from a neutral point of view. st170e^talk 00:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are youtube, social media, and a blog. Lacks independent third party evidence of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:52, 21 December 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 Interactive_fiction#Software. After discarding a few single-purpose accounts and taking into account the canvassing concerns, it seems like there is no evidence here that Hugo meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. To the people who voted !keep, please remember that notability here is not merely about fame or popularity, it's about how many independent and reliable sources exist about a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo (programming language)

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

Hugo (programming language) (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 don't believe this interactive fiction programming language passes
WP:GNG. None of the cited sources are reliable, and only one is independent, but that source is a blog post that merely mentions that one game was written in Hugo. I have tried to find other independent sources, but to no avail. Article previously redirected to Interactive fiction#Software, but it was undone. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Work was being done to add citations and references to this article when it was nominated for deletion, and we'll happily continue through this process. :) Also, my understanding is that Rock Paper Shotgun is a reliable source. Lisatordis1981 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Lisatordis1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Rock, Paper, Shotgun source did not mention Hugo anywhere in it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Rock, Paper, Shotgun website has articles which include "IF Only: Looking back at 2016 in Interactive Fiction" as well as "Splice Of Life: Cryptozookeeper" that go into Hugo, its value to Interactive Fiction, as well as a number of award winning games that were created with it. David Bothfield (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - Frankly, I get the feeling that Hugo's one of those articles that would not have secondary references recently. I suggest we try looking for offline sources, or even possibly archived sources before the article gets deleted for lack of notability. –
(ping me!) 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep. I strongly oppose this deletion. There are about four major programming systems specifically used for creating Interactive fiction and Hugo happens to be one of the least complicated and most accessible, especially for people with limited programming experience. Not listing it here, first makes the language inaccessible to those who might want to try doing a game and find one of the other systems much more tedious or complicated. (I have found it to be the case; an interactive fiction game I wrote easily using Hugo has become a hair-pulling experience trying to port it over to TADS.)

Second, to the extent the various authoring systems are cross-listed it allows someone to look at this or maybe one of the other ones and decide if they should use one of them. Third, it provides a snapshot of the current state of the art in the technology used for this sort of endeavor.

Realize that creation of Interactive Fiction is not like writing websites, creating Android phone apps or coding a payroll system. They are not going to be used by a lot of people. A lot more people will be interested in the current X86-64 bit processor than in the PDP-11 or the Decsystyem 20, but they are still important in order that this site be what it claims: an encyclopedic overview of knowledge and so it must try to completely cover items which now are of only historic interest.

Where there is a problem domain of some kind, all significant solutions in that domain should be included where the solution is/was relevant to a significant segment to the population. Now, maybe only 2,000 people have written or will write an Adventure game or Interactive fiction using an authoring tool (before languages tailored specifically to write Interactive fiction were developed one had to use a fairly complicated general purpose language like C, Fortran or Basic, as well as implement command processing, designing game mechanics, and so on.) So, in that sort of case, an article about any particular tool or system might only be of interest to a few hundred people out of the couple thousand having an interest, but in that case it is of crucial interest.

Plus, Wikipedia is the "go to location" for coverage of esoteric subjects and by providing that comprehensive coverage we should do so when there is a reasonably high interest relative to the size of the audience of that problem domain. Interest in Interactive Fiction Authoring systems is narrow but it is an important part of the history and future of computing, and since we can be comprehensive, we should be.

Hugo may not be very familiar to the general audience of game playing people, but I suspect it is well known among the community of people who write those types of programs, and that should be enough reason for it to be included here. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say keep, fairly esoteric language of a type I've not seen before. scope_creep (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many good games have been created with Hugo, so I'd say that's notable. Here's some of them. RNC (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that
canvassed
to this discussion.

Keep Besides the historical and contemporary significance of Hugo, it is a very accessible program that is perfect for beginners interested in getting into game development, as well as being more than capable of meeting the needs of more advanced programmers. This makes it a perfect article for Wikipedia where people come to enlighten themselves on new avenues of exploration. David Bothfield (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear closer, I smell canvassing. czar 07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how there was no sockpuppetry. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to
refbombing. According to the article history, other editors don't see them either. czar 07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:46, 23 December 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. Seems like we have enough evidence and arguments for notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verbling

Verbling (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 was previously speedy deleted. It has been recreated by
WP:CORPSPAM written for promotional purposes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete insufficient independent evidence of notability.
talk) 18:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as missing international articles in Swedish, 2, 3, Spanish, Turkish. Will defer to other editors on removal of POV bios (Tnooz, Technapex, etc.) Burroughs'10 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is mentioned on some other sites is not sufficient. Can you comment on them? Are they major, reliable Swedish/Turkish newspapers or something? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, answering the above question from Piotr. I've personally heard of
Dagens Industri (link), Aftonbladet (link, founded 1830), Svenska Dagbladet (link, founded 1884), Hürriyet (listed as major newspaper of Turkey) Ferrari250 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm fine with it at this point. I added the refs in places where machine translate could be fairly certain the ref was actually supporting the content. I left out Hürriyet, since it looks a bit click baity. TEN THINGS YOU NEVER KNEW YOU WANTED TO CLICK ON BUT DO!
TimothyJosephWood 19:28, 15 December 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 classical music competitions#Piano/keyboard. Sandstein 13:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lagny-sur-Marne International Piano Competition

Lagny-sur-Marne International Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Does not meet
WP:GNG the French page for this French piano competition was deleted 3 times as being not notable https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concours_international_de_piano_de_Lagny-sur-Marne Domdeparis (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. This article was written following the same guidelines as the ones that apply to other renowned international competitions on wikipedia, such as the Cleveland International Competition or the Van Cliburn Competition. The references direct towards the Alink-Argerich Foundation which is the official "yellow pages" for piano competitions in the world, and as such, is a guarantee of authenticity. Considering that music competitions are part of the world cultural life, it's hard to see why this article couldn't meet the requirements (since, as I just stated, many other competitions are references here on wikipedia, and the match-up of jury members prove that this is a serious and important competition). The fact that the French equivalent of this article was deleted is not sufficient to do the same here, especially when its deletion was not at all justified (literally, not justified with any explanation by the person in charge of deleting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysander3105 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the competition is authentic and the fact that it is listed on the web site attestes to that, but that doesn't make it notable. The web site is a foundation and directory of competitions and by paying 1000€ any competition can join as a member, this in itself does not confer notability. The reason given for the French version's deletion was that it was not notable. You must provide proof of in-depth coverage. I could find very little on the net covering this competition, only one of the winners is deemed well known enough to have his own wikipedia page. You have provided only primary links which do not prove notability. You have created around 40
redlinks, that means that you consider that the subjects are all worthy of a page in Wikipedia and you or someone else will be creating it in the very near future, if this is so feel free to leave them otherwise it would be better to remove them. Domdeparis (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I deleted the redlinks. Many of them would however be worthy of a page on Wikipedia, given that some of these people have international carriers which are well reported on in the press etc. This might be a necessary step afterwards and would further legitimize this article. I also added numerous external references, often from international sources (in French, English, German and Romanian) and websites of renowned magazines or newspapers ("Focus" is a major german weekly magazine) which attest both to the authenticity and notability of the competition, and the news of the prizewinners' victories. Still, I haven't quite gotten the system for editing references (they look a little chaotic at the end of the article, while I've seen pages with a well organized source part).Lysander3105 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly redirect to List of classical music competitions#Piano/keyboard. Apart from the tiniest article [19] in the local newspaper, I'm struggling to see any substantial coverage. The brief mentions the competition gets are usually in relation to something/someone else (e.g the Focus article is about a student who won the competition, it's not about the competition). Even the winners don't appear to be of any note. Sionk (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 December 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. Sandstein 10:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunapee golden trout

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

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

somthing ain't right here. It is claimed that this is a distinct subspecies of
talk) 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I did find this: [20] which says that the existence of this fish a separate and distinct species is not clear, and that there is basically one researcher who at first said no then later changed his mind and said they probably were. That does not appear to constitute a scientific consensus on the issue at all, rather it suggests that there is no agreement. The page also states that the information is preliminary and has not been properly reviewed.
talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Looks like quite a mess here. Catalog of Fishes appears to be inconsistent; I can't link directly to their species records, but go here and search for "Salvelinus alpinus", and look at the entries for aureolus and oquassa. Aureolus was described from Sunapee Lake; that's our "Sunapee golden trout". Catalog of Fishes list aureolus as freshwater dwelling from the NE US and treats it as a synonym of Salvelinus alpinus. However, with oquassa, Catalog of Fishes lists it as being from marine and freshwater habitats in New England and Southern Canada, and treats it as a valid subspecies, Salvelinus alpinus oquassa. Fishbase doesn't mention S. a. oquasa, but has both Salvelinus aureolus and Salmo oquassa as synonyms of Salvelinus alpinus alpinus (see here). Plantdrew (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether or not the Sunapee Trout is or was a distinct species is irrelevant here. Is the topic notable or not? This [21] suggests the topic is notable as the references in this PDF are clearly RS. I am sure I could find many more. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant? Surely, it's the very heart of
talk) 02:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think
WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES can be interpreted in the negative--i.e. if not a species, then its inherently not-notable. As a topic: Sunapee Golden Trout or Salvelinus aureolus has sufficient coverage in RS to pass our notability standard. There are many "former" species, subspecies that are no longer valid, yet we have articles on them because there is sufficient RS to support notability of the topic. Notability is about coverage in RS, not accuracy of content in the article.--Mike Cline (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That and the actual coverage that uses the exact wording "Sunapee golden trout" is nearly non existent.
talk) 02:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

That's an article title issue, not a notability issue. The article could just as easily be entitled Sunapee trout (currently a redirect) or Salvelinus aureolus and there's sufficient RS to support those titles. [22], [23], [24] --Mike Cline (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes of course, I see. Yes, we have categories for a wide range of things which are merely claimed or once thought to exist.
talk) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I don't think this is a notability issue. Rather it's a taxonomy issue which should be discussed in-text. Either on Salvelinus alpinus
itself (which is already the case) and/or in this separate article on the subspecies. I prefer separation because the populations treated as S. a. oquassa are all geographically isolated from S. alpinus with quite a lot of available sources (Google Books for instance) that treat them as distinct (either distinct populations, subspecies, or species) with explicit common names.

Sunapee trout as discussed here refers to three distinct populations known separately as Sunapee trout (S. aureolus), blueback (S. oquassa), and Quebec red trout (S. marstoni), all of which were originally described as separate species. Per USGS, Sunapee trout are from Lake Sunapee, Averill Pong, Big Dan Pond, and Floods Pond (they are extinct in the former 3, and now only survive in Floods Pond); bluebacks are from northwestern Maine; and Quebec red trouts are from southern Quebec.

Per S.U. Qadri (1974), P.J. Rombough et al. (1978), and Irv Kornfield et al. (1980), all three (S. aureolus, S. oquassa, and S. marstoni) are identical and should be treated as separate relict land-locked populations of the same subspecies of S. alpinus, as S. alpinus oquassa.

This is the treatment this article follows, and is also the one most widely accepted among current taxonomists, AFAIK, thus the one we should follow per
WP:DUE. I haven't seen any recent papers that explicitly synonymizes S. alpinus oquassa with S. alpinus alpinus, aside from databases.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 01:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arctic char. I think this would make the whole topic more clear to readers.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the right solution as the topic of Sunapee trout is notable in its own right regardless of its relationship to Arctic char. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To me, as a non-expert, it would be easier to understand them if they were discussed in the context of their entire species. No information would need to be removed in the merge. Also something being notable does not require WP to have a distinct article on it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subspecies is genetically distinct and landlocked with specialized adaptations that means the generalized description in Arctic char do not apply. Distinct enough to warrant a separate article. I don't understand the premise of this deletion even. It is not a separate species. It's a subspecies, and it does exist.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the information on its unique adaptations could and should be included in the combined article, if that's the way we want to go.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make a lot sense given that we don't treat other major trout species in a similar manner. See Rainbow trout - 13 related subspecies and strain articles; Cutthroat trout - 15 related articles; brown trout - 2+ related morph articles; and brook trout - 2+ related subspecies/strain articles. If a subspecies or strain is notable in its own right (sufficient RS) then a separate article is warranted. The convoluted nature of taxanomic and common knowledge history makes it very difficult to cover complex subspecies/strains in the main article without seriously confusing the reader. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case both articles are fairly short. I don't see the benefit of two articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that Salvelinus alpinus oquassa is only one of at least five subspecies of Salvelinus alpinus worldwide - the European char (S. alpinus alpinus), the Canadian High Arctic char (S. alpinus erythrinus), the Sunapee trout/blueback/Quebec red trout (S. alpinus oquassa), the sea trout/Alpine trout (S. alpinus salvelinus), and the Kamchatka char/taranets char/dwarf arctic char (WP:UNDUE
and even more confusing, as it gives the impression that only two types of Arctic char exist.

At the moment, I'm not even sure if the article on Arctic char is generalized, or if its describing the nominate subspecies, or if its confusing the descriptions of different subspecies from different sources.

It doesn't help that all of them are historically part of the
Salvelinus malma species complex (which includes around 70 taxa described as species in the past). Various authors throughout the years have treated them differently. Sometimes lumping them all together as one highly polymorphic species with various subspecies, several species each with different subspecies, or completely separate species altogether and various permutations thereof. Keeping the articles separate for each taxon makes it easier to adjust our articles if ever their classifications shift again. Besides, regardless of taxonomy, they are already treated as different fish by laymen. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. And yes. Ideally the articles for Arctic char should be similar to how we treat the articles for rainbow trout.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the rainbow trout article is better.Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS The fish themselves probably don't care if they are species or subspecies. ;-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's actually one of the reasons why this was pushed to be resolved quicker in the last few years. So many of the Salvelinus "species" described in the past were endemic to various different lakes. The confusion on whether these populations are distinct species meant that it was unclear if conservation efforts were even needed. A lot of them are now extinct (including Sunapee populations in Sunapee Lake itself). That said, Sunapee trout itself is specifically subject to conservation efforts and protected by law under the Maine government, regardless of whatever taxonomists may classify it as. That alone I think, is enough to justify maintaining a separate article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fishing for more opinions here. Sandstein 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of this AfD, please Improve all the articles on Salmonidae. Thank you.Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:32, 18 December 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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ricky Anne Loew-Beer

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

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Of course being married to Lauren allows you to indulge in vanity projects. TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Weak~~ Keep (on the basis of the motivation of the article appearing to be more genealogical, I can understand why the nominator raised it at AfD) It doesn't do a great service of the subject to make her simply an appendage of her very
notable husband. But her book The Hamptons: Food, Family, and History has been widely reviewed [25][26][27], which suggests she is a notable author in her own right. Sionk (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Changed my !vote to plain ole Keep, if more than one of her books have been widely reviewed. Her other books were pre-internet, so coverage will be harder to find. Meets
WP:CREATIVE #4. Sionk (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep ~~Merge~~ - She received media attention for her book about RL Ranch in Colorado for New York Times, ABC, etc., but I'm not seeing that the subject meets the
WP:GNG
and I'm not seeing the subject meetings the guidelines on her own.

It would take very little work to merge this into the Ralph Lauren article - much of the content is already there. The LR Ranch book could be linked with the sentence about the ranch in the family section, for instance. Focus on the notable books. And, the additions, IMO opinion, would help round out the Lauren article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep based upon comments by SusunW--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me that with the considerable press coverage on her book, she deserves to have an article in her own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ipigott, That may be. One thought, though, kind of a chicken-before-the-egg kind of question. Is the book getting so much press for its own sake, or is it getting so much press because she's the wife of Ralph Lauren and it's basically about his family / family life?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carole for this observation. Whatever the book relates to, the fact remains that it has received considerable attention. I have a feeling that if a male author had achieved such success as a result of a book on his well-known wife, there would have been no discussion on his notability. Wikipedia should aim to include articles on notable individuals in their own right whatever their family relationships.--Ipigott (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott Yep. For what it's worth, I did a fair amount of looking into Loew-Beer as I was tidying up the article and I am quite impressed by her. If this wasn't an encyclopedia article, I would quite enjoy writing much more about her. It still doesn't change my vote, but I understand your vote and where you are coming from.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One afterthought is perhaps there should be an article about the The Hamptons: Food, Family and History and/or Cuisine, Lifestyle, and Legend of the Double RL Ranch books.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the book(s) would be valid, considering the write ups (though maybe not at the top of everyone's to-do list). If two of her books have received multiple reviews then I might change my !vote to just plain 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have started an article about the book regarding the Hamptons. I think the book about the Double RL Ranch may have been self-published. The Library of Congress does not have it, and there's not as much about it as the Hampton book.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As specified in the article, the publisher is Melcher Media. I can't see why you think it was self published, but even if it was, that would not be a reason for questioning its importance or that of its author.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary side conversation

I am a little confused. I was probably typing too much in a stream of consciousness - and what you missed were my thoughts about preferring to write the one about the Double RL Ranch, but I wasn't finding as much about it - and I thought it weird that the book isn't in the Library of Congress. If you put together my response to you + that I am starting an article about one of the books and then come to the conclusion I don't respect the author, I don't know what to say.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this leaves me feeling a bit defeated at the moment about the article about the cookbook. I guess I will come back to it later. If I had disregard for her, why would I touch up her article and Ralph Lauren's article in these changes, where the family had been at the bottom of the article, beneath the automobile collection. As well as the edits that I made to her article? Sorry, just a bit gobsmacked at the moment.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. No one's accused you of disregarding the subject. Even if they had, it wouldn't be a suitable discussion for here. Sionk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am collapsing my comments.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me understand this nomination, a poor, college drop-out marries a college educated woman who helps him entertain the rich and famous to build his career [28], [29], [30], [31], has "inherited his fame"? I think rather, she was instrumental in creating the fantasy that became him. Her books, writing about the jet-set life they built, added to his fame, not vice verse. "Ralph found it extremely difficult to get his business venture underway — often turned down, or offered a spot on store shelves if he changed numerous elements of his design. All the while, Ricky stood by Ralph’s side, supporting, cheering, encouraging"...Ralph’s perseverance and Ricky’s unfailing support paid out..." [32], [33] Plenty has been written about her to satisfy GNG. [34], [35], [36]. Though I am not sure that the article shouldn't be titled Ricky Lauren, as that is how her 4 books were published, as well as how most press is styled. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the move/name change: Yes, it's also discussed on
Talk:Ricky Anne Loew-Beer. Agreed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep She is clearly notable as SusunW has established above. I'd also like to point out that NOTINHERITED only applies if the person has no coverage independent of the person that they are "inheriting" notability from. If there was no coverage about her at all, that would be different. But there is. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is quite enough coverage for her books. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let it snow! WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:33, 22 December 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. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty work

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

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

I can't actually find a CSD tag that would fit. This seems like a speech given by someone, can't for the life of me determine why the article is titled like this. Any meaningful content could be moved to
Manuel Quezon. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Yeah, I couldn't think of an appropriate csd, so I PRODed it on the basis that it is very far from apparent what it is abou. There isn't a csd for very long articles with insufficient context. If I wasn't lazy I'd have looked for the article that I imagine most of this has been copypasted from, & csd'd it as a duplicate.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be nothing but the transcript of a speech, followed by someone's personal essay and analysis of said speech. The actual individual who gave the speech, Manuel L. Quezon, has an article, and as the non-speech portions here are complete OR, there's nothing to merge. As noted, the title of this article doesn't seem to make sense or be related to the subject at all, so a Redirect or anything like that would be a bad idea. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very strangely-titled transcript of a speech followed by unreferenced (and probably OR) analysis. Not encyclopaedic. Neiltonks (talk) 22:01, 15 December 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) Icebob99 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmodium tyrio

Plasmodium tyrio (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)

Source paper nowhere to be found, only content is on mirror sites, name has zero usage in academic literature. See this google search. This article can't have any references, so it fails
WP:DEL7 Icebob99 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
- CSD This might be
CSD G3. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 16:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I don't think this is a hoax, as searching in Google Books actually does bring up some books published in the 1920's and 1930's that mention the parasite, as well as attributing the information to the authors that this article states, as seen here. However, as I am unable to find anything more recent mentioning it than 1938, its possible that the information on the parasite has become outdated, or that this particular name is no longer used for it. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Looks legitimate. I found a book published in 1966 that lists it (as a doubtful Malaria carrier) [37] and a mention that it is hosted by the Pangolin (which is a bit of info not in the article) [38]. Also saw several earlier books as noted above. MB 05:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The species exists (that is, a description was published, and apparently nobody has synonymized it with another species). Apparent lack of sources seems to be a limitation of what's available on the internet (the original description isn't on the internet as far as I can tell, but is mentioned in another book from 1928). 17:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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 moved to draft. Now at
non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Roll No. 56

Roll No. 56 (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 film. No
WP:RS to establish notability, most of the sources are promotional or self sources. The page was previously deleted by PROD. PROD was again deleted without any explanation. Coderzombie (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Google search can only find blogposts and unreliable sources. No source indicate notability. Coderzombie (talk) 15:53, 15 December 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 per
WP:G7 as the article creator has agreed with deletion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Glise

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

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

Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Currently, the page's only references are a forum and an advertising page on the web site of the company that produce "Glise". The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 15:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
-
Dear Mr JamesBWatson, I've added only 2 links because the earlier entry of mine was deleted due to "promotion" warning. It was little bit confusing. Thank you for your explanations. I understand your points now. So, I can confirm article deletion as you suggested. Best regards. Codimension (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Codimension: By "I can confirm article deletion" do you mean that you agree to have the article deleted? If that is what you mean, then we can close this discussion without taking up any more of editors' time.

Meanwhile, since your comment implicitly indicated that the earlier version of the article had more references, I will describe all the references that have been provided, including all those in the version of the article which has been deleted.

A forum post.

A page on the download site softpedia, where Glise can be obtained.

Advertising pages on the websites www.twistednormal.com and www.evermotion.org. I don't know what the relationship is between Twistednormal and Evermotion, but both of them on their web sites refer to development of Glise in the first person (e.g. on www.twistednormal.com "We started coding Glise 6 years ago", and on www.evermotion.org "We just released the latest version of our little neat subsurface 3d modeler, Glise 1.6.") so clearly neither of them is an independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

-
Dear Mr JamesBWatson, yes. I'm agree with deletion. The links you explained have review and version informations. That's why I added them. Thank you for your explanations and all efforts again. Best regards. Codimension (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As the editor who originally PROD'd the page, which was removed by the page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 22:29, 15 December 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 restored. Now points to
non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Trent Olsen

Trent Olsen (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)

Celebrity brother of somebody famous. Asserts
WP:GNG. No references since article was created. Delete and Salt. scope_creep (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – no notability asserted, aside from
WP:INHERITED. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 15 December 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) 07:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

African Journal of Biotechnology

African Journal of Biotechnology (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)

A journal with no impact factor from a Nigerian
predatory open access publishing company. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete To my shame I see that I edited this, but to my defense: that was years ago when predatory publishing was not yet as much recognized as now. Despite it not meeting NJournals, I guess I left it alone as a misguided "affirmative action", given the difficulties that scientists in Africa face. But, of course, no difficulties justify creating scam journals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake to make, the entire point of these journals is that they look legit at face value. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Randykitty. Ajpolino (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, it appears that JzG is in error, this does have an impact factor according to this and this. Are these sites wrong? EdChem (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those sites are wrong. Check the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List and you'll see that this journal is not indexed by them. Scijournal.org is a fake IF provider published by ISI. Note that this misleadingly stands for "International Scientific Institute" and not for "Institute for Scientific Information", the organization that publishes the Journal Citation Reports. ResearchGate calculates its own IFs (see the note immediately below the IF of 0.44 that they report), but as far as I know, nobody pays any attention to those... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randykitty (talk • contribs)

Delete: Thanks, Randykitty, that was the link I was looking for to check definitively. I can't see any policy grounds to support keeping this article, it is on Beall's list, is published by a predatory publisher, and I see nothing from it that would support classification as notable. EdChem (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable journal by predatory publisher - would need discussion of its low quality in multiple RS in order to for us to write an NPOV article, and those do not exist. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
books} 13:16, 19 December 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) 07:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TolMol

TolMol (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 agree with the nomination for speedy deletion under the
WP:WEB
guidelines. This article has been in "article space" since April 2008. I think that only indicates its longevity as a Wikipedia article. That "longevity as a Wikipedia article" is not relevant to the notability of its subject. All that said: I think an
WP:AfD discussion is a better place to address the issues about this article. Shirt58 (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 13:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 22:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Zero evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Uppal

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG no indepth coverage, very minor parts in TV shows. Too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete collection of minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 15 December 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 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity Project

Ingenuity Project (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 project. Only relevant to a small number of schools in a small area. No significant coverage in secondary sources. noq (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is coverage in secondary sources. The organization has a $1M yearly budget. All the coverage I could find was local to Baltimore [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] and this one [44] where it is described as a "little known non-profit" and a "best-kept secret". One mention in USA Today, but not that significant [45]. Not enough to pass GNG. MB 06:27, 16 December 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yahan Pyar Nahi Hai

Yahan Pyar Nahi Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page has had no reputable citations since the year 2012. There is no proof of notability. Manoflogan (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 15 December 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Wizards

Fashion Wizards (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)

Cannot find any sources that prove this show was ever broadcast on TV. Does not meet notability requirements for Media and Music Rogermx (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kojima Keitaney Love

Kojima Keitaney Love (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. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 20:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:08, 15 December 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 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayTyme Magazine

PlayTyme Magazine (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)

Speedy declined. Unremarkable magazine. Only reference is a 404 error. Cannot find any in-depth coverage from
notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 21:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. I also could not locate any
independent reliable sources for this magazine. -- Dane ^talk 20:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a publication which was only ever sourced to itself and to a corporate dissolution notice about the former publishing company. The online magazine also appears to have gone dormant over 2 years ago. No
notability. AllyD (talk) 12:46, 15 December 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. obvious A7 DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Axlebar

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

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

Fails
WP:COMPANY Closeapple (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per own nomiation: Probably speedy-deletable under
PRODded it instead. --Closeapple (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - should have used
WP:CSD#G11, this is just promotion of a non-notable vehicle sales website. Dan arndt (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete as per Dan Domdeparis (talk) 15:06, 15 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorteens Castle

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Besides WP:Trivial mentions in ruin databases that confirm it exists, the only non-trivial mention is one database that goes into greater detail. I can't find anything that indicates it is independently notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately. I love castles, but could find zero hits on any of the search engines. Shouldn't say that, there were two hits... both to this Wikipedia stub. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The entry in the Database of Irish Excavation Reports gives a 1905 publication as a reference. As well as that it is also discussed in Ben Murtagh's "Kilmurry Castle and other related sites in Slieverue parish", Old Kilkenny Review 52 (2000).
There is a more general point that careful consideration should be given when nominating articles on historic sites for deletion and just because references are difficult to find online does not mean they don't exist. This is precisely the kind of site that will have attracted antiquarian interest, especially form the 19th or early 20th century – sources which you're unlikely to find outside of a library. Any structure which has stood for that long is a significant part of the landscape. Illustrating that is the fact that in the England (I am less familiar with Ireland) any building older than 1700 which survives in a reasonable state is protected from unauthorised change under law and will have reports written about it.
For anyone interested in Irish castles I can recommend Tom McNeill's book on the subject; he makes the interesting point that Irish castle studies has been given relatively poor treatment because they are seen as symbols of conquest.
Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Respectfully, I don't believe that shows it has been the subject of significant coverage to make it independently notable. Perhaps it could be included in the County Kilkenny article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the site in two separate academic journals is plenty to demonstrate notability of the site, and it is likely that other sources exist which are not searchable online.
Nev1 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I understand the article is/was a stub and has issues, but I don't understand why the structure isn't obviously a suitable subject for Wikipedia. I've expanded the article and added citations, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I fail to believe a substantial ruined castle isn't notable and, as has been pointed out, it was recorded in a 1905 book. All the same, I'd be interested to know whether it is recorded on any Irish heritage list. Sionk (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being recorded as existing in a 1905 book, or even two books, doesn't mean it has been the subject of significant coverage. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article may have been in a poorer state when originally proposed, but the cites and content seem to meet the criteria expected for articles in general (
WP:GEOFEAT-buildings). The two excavation reports from 1993 and 2003,[46][47] would seem to represent non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. I'll have to AGF on the 1905 book as I can't seem to find the supposed references in the Carrigan text[48], but while the article could be clearer that the only (overground) remains are the ruined gatehouse and some walls, I'm not seeing the case for outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Castles simply are notable. If you named a fast food restaurant a "castle", it would be notable too, frankly. --do ncr am 03:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I'm unclear, is this sarcasm? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Clearly a notable archaeological site. The link to a SMR record is sufficient to verify that this is not a hoax. It is called a castle because it was one. A pub near where I live is called Windsor Castle, but that is not notable. A burger joint given the name 'castle' would be NN, but a genuine medieval castle is likely to be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For God's sake, it's a castle! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 21 December 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) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Kollam

List of hotels in Kollam (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)

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Not a notable list topic as none of the entries are notable in their own right. WP:PROD contested by creator citing a poor reason. Has done nothing in ten months to improve the page to make it even the least bit encyclopedic Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk)

Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; can't put it better myself. It's worth noting that one of the hotels is notable but none of the others appear to be. It doesn't meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. Spiderone 21:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Charles (talk) 14:19, 22 December 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) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titas Krapikas

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

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

The football player never played in a fully professional league, hence fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Fbgpwns5277 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:26, 15 December 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) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh to Shimla Trains

Chandigarh to Shimla Trains (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)

Pointless page with train timetables between two locations.
WP:NTT applies. No trains exist that go directly between the locations in the article title. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbai to Goa Trains for a discussion on a similar article by the same editor. noq (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 16 December 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
talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Amah Matsun

Amah Matsun (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 sources, no indication of notability and numerous other issues. Appears to be 100%
WP:OR Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Im not a pc person and I am learning. gemme some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruochuanwang (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) I am providing the sources as much as I can and it is late here in west coast USA. Me and my friends will continue work on it so please don't delete it so soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruochuanwang (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC) @Zackmann08 can you take a quick look? So I can at least delete the red area. gotta show this to somebody for our project. I will leave the orange area(template messages) there till the end. and when is the end of the discussion of this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruochuanwang (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. there is a spelling mistake on the title. please delete that page. I moved all the content to the correct one.

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There are ample Google News results. I should add that the article creator, who is new, has been pleading for time to improve the article.
talk) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The article also now exists as
talk) 13:51, 15 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker and MFT

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

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

No indication of notability.
WP:PROMO Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The artist have been brought up in many reputable sources, including MTV.com which you can not create an account for. They have many Verified Artist profiles on social Media supporting their work and are verified on Facebook as well with an official website and soon to be Verified Twitter page. They are owners of 50/50 innertainment and are musicians of the Record Label which is Verified also online. There are many popuar Celebrities listed on Wikipedia that support 50/50 innertainment with many online response that tag their page and name. According to WP:MUSICBIO This artist meets the criterion which includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. I apologize for the inconvenience I am just doing my best as a new user to state facts, I appreciate your contributions and all that you do for Wikipedia Zackman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny5000 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These Colorado Hip Hop musicians have been featured in MTV and recognized as one of the most popular music producers in Colorado and the genre of their music. They have worked with popular celebrities like LiL FLip , Do or Die . They have been featured in the top 500 charts with their album "Money Come & Go" and featured along side popular celebrities like Justin Bieber , Kanye West , Eminem and more. The have also opened up for many popular Hip Hop musicians like Oj Da Juiceman, Project Pat , Three 6 Mafia and many other Wikipedians listed. According to WP:MUSICBIO This artist meets the criterion which includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been on the page for longer than two weeks, please "Keep" the page as is. Relisting this is considered spam and abusive in Wikipedia rules and guidelines. *The artist have been brought up in many reputable sources, including MTV.com which you can not create an account for. They have many Verified Artist profiles on social Media supporting their work and are verified on Facebook as well with an official website and soon to be Verified Twitter page. They are owners of 50/50 innertainment and are musicians of the Record Label which is Verified also online. There are many popuar Celebrities listed on Wikipedia that support 50/50 innertainment and Stryker and MFT with many online response that tag their page and name. According to WP:MUSICBIO This artist meets the criterion which includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny5000 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:UNRELIABLE sources and you think that list this page is spam??? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

How is MTV an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johny5000 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment sooner as it's clear this is heavily-focused advertising and our policies of WP:NOT and WP:N take care of that alone since it's clear about what company and business articles we allow and delete, that's enough alone. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 26 December 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. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avra

Avra (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:NMUSIC. Nothing on google news and secondary source coverage cited in article is trivial. agtx 00:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes
WP:MUSICBIO#1: subject of articles in multiple sources: Girl.com.au, theage.com.au and Neos Kosmos; #10: performed music for a work of media that is notable – authored and performed musical theatre shows: Innate (2002), Avra: a Superalterego (2003), Avra – the Musical (2004).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The piece from the Age is a single, brief piece that's over 10 years old, with no subsequent coverage. The girl.com.au page looked to me like it was trying to sell CDs. Do you have references for why the shows you list are notable? agtx 15:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there are recent references but they are mostly anecdotal and very local and have little to do with her career as a musician. Domdeparis (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal certainly not the main topic. If this survives, move to
Avra (musician) and move Avra (disambiguation) over the baseline In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 15 December 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) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Aureada

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

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

Fails
Lucena, Philippines but he is not. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6237280/?ref_=nm_knf_t1 i find "the Misplaced" cast include Howell aureada director /Toni aureada

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

of course he would never be Popular in your hometown Cause Howell aureada is a Voice Actor

Strong delete - Voice actor or not, I found exactly zero coverage about him (and his brother for that matter); in fact, the only online hits of him (apart from YouTube) are from IMDb. At best this is simply a case of
csd new 13:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No coverage in
WP:RS for child voice actor with one non-starring appearance. Concur with User:Narutolovehinata5's TOOSOON suggestion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete My sweeps of Philippine news didn't find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 21 December 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
non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Go! Kids

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 this is a "part-time television channel" and appears to be simply branding of a children's television programming block, no references apart from a press release from the channel's parent company. Suggest merging some content to 9Go! but a kid's block with no secondary sources doesn't need its own article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to 9Go! as all the content was here prior to this edit to this edit [49]. There is no need for a separate article as this is a non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to where it was. Unless there is some major new and extra content coming very soon for this separate article, there does not seem to be any reason to split it off. Aoziwe (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just some points for thought: ABC Kids (Australia) has its own page... and in advertising the new Hi-5, they have been saying it will air on "Go! Kids" not on "9Go!"... I could definitely add some secondary sources here for a "history" section. SatDis (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that ABC Kids and ABC2 are seperate entities sharing a channel space, where as Go! Kids is just branding of its kids block and not a seperate channel identity. Additionally, ABC Kids has a relatively long history of existance, and thus has more sourced content which warrants a standalone article. Go! Kids does not, and there does not yet appear any reason why Go Kids needs to be seperated from 9Go!.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid defence alone. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I do agree - just thought I'd suggest some alternate opinions. SatDis (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This deletion is useless. As SatDis has said before,
Nine Entertainment Co. have confirmed that this is the branding for kids shows on 9Go!, and I created this page after hearing the announcement on MediaSpy. Although they use the 9Go! watermark instead of it's own watermark, let's keep this page and not delete it. Aaron's The Best (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC). This is an official reply.[reply
]
Update on my reply - Go! Kids DOES have their own, separate watermark. I was flicking through the TV channel yesterday and saw that Go! Kids does have a separate watermark from 9Go! So this page should be on keep for ultimately! Thanks. Aaron's The Best (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC). This is another official reply.[reply]
Having a watermark does not establish a reason for a children's branding block to have its own seperate article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron's The Best is the creator of the article and also previous removed the AFD template. Ajf773 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per the various reasons given by the other merge proponents. Safiel (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, most of the content is just a long list of programs not original to Go! Kids. What's left is better covered in the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 9Go!. Lack sufficient coverage for its own article. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:56, 22 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of colleges in Ratnagiri

List of colleges in Ratnagiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's a "list of colleges" in a specific city in India. However, only one of the three colleges on this list has an article. This list does not seem appropriate as a stand-alone list. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Education in Ratnagiri. We don't need a list of colleges in a city, categories are fine for that, but an education in city article would be fine. Might as well start it with this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article serves absolutely no purpose at all. Redirect to Ratnagiri if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doubtful that anyone searching would be searching for this term. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, this does not meet the criteria for lists. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have put in many efforts in cleaning out List of education institutes in XYZ, be it schools, high schools, colleges, universities from a town, city, district or state of India and unfortunately have not come up with any fixed suits-all system. But I am fine with Education in Ratnagiri district, similar to what @Piotrus: suggests. The Category:Ratnagiri district does have some educational institutes which could be mentioned in prose format than just useless list of blue-links. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:GNG etc. It is also not a plausible search term so no need for a redirect. Spiderone 19:21, 19 December 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 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Abraham (record producer)

Daniel Abraham (record producer) (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 prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:Notability (musicians) requirements. " It was deprodded by an admin due to technicality (it was prodded for BLP-no-sources, and the prod was removed on another technicality. I hope we can close this as speedy delete for reasons cited. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

History - BLP-PROD (8 November 2014‎) rejected as article was created before 2010, then standard PROD (18 November 2014‎), seconded by User:Bearian, deleted by me (28 November 2014). I restored it two years later as contested PROD - request by User:Falconwhit. Personally I don't think an unreferenced page has any place in the current Wikipedia. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, this was restored but there's still nothing for actual substance in actual independent notability, hence nothing to convince us otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the "delete" suggestion as citations (book, magazine, web) have been added in response to User:Ronhjones's previous comment. Please also consider that there are a number of wiki pages currently linking to this page, and another 50 or so pages on localized wikipedia not listed on the "what links here" that mention Daniel Abraham (google search) Thanks Falconwhit (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 17 December 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) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Lim

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

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

This is a not-yet notable child actor working for
WP:ACTOR and I don't see significant coverage either. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No IMDb entry? No proof those are non-minor roles, so fails WP:NACTOR as written ->
WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete actor in only minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Piotrus. ^Avic _ennasis @ 16:58, 18 Kislev 5777 / 16:58, 18 December 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) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Effendy

Patrick Effendy (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 director lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominated for an award, but never won. None of the listed productions are of significant notoriety. Per
WP:GNG delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not all movie producers are notable. Awards limited to a single nominations, all films he created are minor enough to still be red links, as written fails
WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not a notable director. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 04:32, 16 December 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) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Hashish

Rami Hashish (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 a notable person. The only Google News results for him are the blog entries he written himself. JDDJS (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, article is basically a resume. Subject simply does not meet
WP:GNG. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Screams
NPROF. John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete He's written some articles but I'm not seeing the multiple independent sources necessary to pass
WP:BIO. The article seems to be a bit on the puff piece side, with references to anything that has mentioned his name. There are lots of references, but many of them are not worth anything. For instance, the ref https://www.yelp.com/biz/urban-med-los-angeles for his being the Director of Rehabilitation Medicine at UrbanMed is nothing but some gushing blog postings, which do not mention his position. (I don't doubt the position, but the ref does not verify it, and is just non-reliable puffery.) The info box states that he is known for being the founder of the National Biomechanics Institute. Impressive sounding name, but it appears to simply be his business, which was incorporated just 7 months ago (in Delaware). It claims to be "the preeminent biomechanics consulting firm in the United States" but we need a bit more than just his company website to back that up. The only sources I can find for this company are its physical and online presence, job postings, and mentions of it in Hashish's various bios. Meters (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I want a source for Hashish participated in more than 100 human cadaver dissections OR IT NEVER HAPPENED! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Very low citations for his field and no other evidence that he meets
WP:GNG. I do find it surprising that a purportedly new editor would create an (almost) perfectly formed article like this and have asked the creator about a conflict of interest. Joe Roe (talk) 11:27, 15 December 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. When you post content to Wikipedia, you license it for free reuse by anyone in the world, unchanged or modified in any way whatever. You therefore can't have content deleted just because it was copied from content you posted to Wikipedia. If you are not willing to license your work for free reuse, then don't post it to Wikipedia. I have added an edit summary to the article's history, attributing the copied work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Valerie Grant

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

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

Page was stolen from my own sandbox; might be previous user attempting to attack my work that has yet to be finalized livelikemusic talk! 02:10, 15 December 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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team

1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team (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)

Another range of football team pages, which run to dozens of simple article, almost exactly the same. Seeking merge into single table to reduce New Pages Feed backlog of which this makeup many redundant pages. scope_creep (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, part of a long-standing campaign by the college football WikiProject to have articles for every season for all major college football programs. Lizard (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the creator(s) can't/don't want to put effort into the articles, then they don't need to be creating them. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @User:Lizard the Wizard Why? What is the point? The information would still be persevered when it is in a table. The methodology they have created to have a page per year is completely irrational. It involves a huge amount of time to review pages in the New Page Feed, plodding through them at a time, checking it,ticking it off, next one, plod, when the diff between them is some years run to only a few bytes of data of difference. I suspect that probably between 10 and 20% of the New Page Feed backlog is probably articles like this. It would be better to put merge them into lots of 10 into decades. That would cut the work down drastically, with no loss of knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm really not sure; I wasn't around when the campaign started, and I'm not much involved in it. All I know is that it's understood that eventually there will be an article for every season of every major college program, so nominating one for deletion is futile (and has been in the past). Lizard (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College football in the US, including the history of its major teams (of which Colorado, a power conference team and one-time national champion, is certainly one), is an incredibly well-covered sport, and there will be plenty of documentation on individual seasons of major teams. While the article is short and could use improvement, deletion is not cleanup. I'm especially dismayed by the suggestion that we delete these to reduce the new page patrol backlog; if one's solution to an influx of new articles and content on a topic is to delete the articles just to make the backlog smaller, one has no business patrolling new pages. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Season articles for major teams generate sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG. IMO there ought to be a presumption of notability for seasons involving a Power 5 Conference team. Colorado is such a major team with membership in a Power 5 Conference, 26 conference titles, a national championship and a Heisman Trophy winner. Moreover, the essential elements of a football season simply cannot be "persevered" (or "preserved" either for that matter) with a single line in a chart. BTW I have expanded the article a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the reasoning and efforts of Cbl62 and also because, as TheCatalyst31 noted, deletion is not cleanup.
Lepricavark (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but this shit will keep happening as long as y'all don't add some substance and schedules to differentiate them.- Well I put the whole thing in bold to make my point.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep generally we find that season articles for Division I FBS programs generate more than enough press to surpass
There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cbl62, TheCatalyst31, and Paulmcdonald's reasoning and arguments as an NCAA D-I FBS team historical season. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Season articles for university teams are essentially auto-keeps, since they ALL, and I do mean ALL, have been substantially covered in multiple published sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 20 December 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) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

1947 Washington State Cougars football team

1947 Washington State Cougars football team (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)

Single page American Football article, of which run from 1899 to 2016, and each one has a single page. Requesting delete and amalgamation, of first 50, which only in each is coach, year and Standings changed. It could easily merged into decades. Side effect is many dozens of these articles needing reviewed, with substantially little difference between them. Little knowledge can easily be amalgamated into single table per decade, or per 20 year block. Took page at random for WP:AFD. scope_creep (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Season articles for major teams generate sufficient coverage to pass
WP:GNG. IMO there ought to be a presumption of notability for seasons involving a Power 5 Conference team. Washington State is such a major team with membership in a Power 5 Conference. Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep again, per the logic postulated by Cbl62.
Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep College football, including the history and seasons of its major teams (such as Washington State), is an incredibly well-covered sport. Deletion is not cleanup, and we definitely shouldn't be deleting pages just to reduce a backlog (especially when autopatrolled status is an option). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know American Football is notable on WP. I'm not looking to delete the information, nor reformat it into a form which makes it harder to read or create, nor to alter any table or other salient information in any manner. I merely think that if two pages have only 12 characters of difference, in the first two articles I looked at across at 1919 Colorado Silver and Gold football team, they should be combined, perhaps per a decade block, or a period that is more natural to American Football. 13:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

keep passes
Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and expand Passes all required notability checks.--Rockchalk717 07:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62, TheCatalyst31, and Paulmcdonald's reasoning and arguments as an NCAA D-I FBS team historical season, just like we did when we had this exact same discussion just eight weeks ago. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:16, 20 December 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) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Rights Amendment: Campus Sexual Assault

Equal Rights Amendment: Campus Sexual Assault (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 is an essay about campus sexual assault that's extremely heavy on
WP:NPOV issues. A merge with campus sexual assault has been proposed, but I honestly don't know how any of the content in this article could be merged. This is an essay with a thesis and a conclusion, not an encyclopedia article. agtx 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete,
WP:Synth. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Mostly OR.Mattnad (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with everything that has been said, most especially that it's an essay and
WP:OR. Very strange that the merge tag on Campus sexual assault is to merge it into this article. The problem starts with the long and confusing title. The campus sexual assault is far better organized, well-cited, and well-rounded encyclopedic article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Concur with the above. Especially
WP:NPOV . MB 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place for essays that advance a given thesis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 22 December 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Francesconi

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

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

Fails
WP:NPOL. City council member in Portland, Oregon for less than a decade, who went on to lose mayoral and county commission chair elections. Further research demonstrates that he is now working as a vice president at a regional healthcare company. Just not notable enough for Wikipedia as far as I can see. (Be aware that there is an unrelated late North Carolina marine fisheries expert named James Francesconi who shows up in news searches.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
talk) 00:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, appears to meet GNG, which overrides NPOL (which one cannot fail NPOL anyway, you just don't meet the criteria for auto inclusion). I think in general city council members of cities over say 500k will meet GNG based upon the coverage in the press. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our standard for the notability of city councillors is not "500K" or "600K" or "largest city in its own state"; it's "internationally famous metropolitan
Washington Post, that would count for something toward demonstrating notability — but just showing a handful of hits from Portland's local media doesn't cut it, because any city councillor in any city could always show a handful of local media hits.) And MP298's second link, the one that supposedly makes an especially strong case for his notability as a local public official, is a blurb in an alt-weekly about his failure to win reelection to the city council in 2014 — if that's a strong case for inclusion, I'd hate to see how much more trivial a source would have to get before MB298 was willing to deem it a weak one. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Pardon my french, but BULLSHIT. Just BULLSHIT. Here is what the SNG for Politicians actually says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." It does not say a peep about "local political figures" being limited to the 10 biggest global metropolises, or what have you — you are simply making stuff up from whole cloth. Francesconi is indeed a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage." Exactly that! His apparent "crime against Wikipedia" is having lost a primary race for Mayor of Portland. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my (much more fluent) French, but NOT bullshit — everything I said was exactly correct. For starters, you do have to read
WP:NPOL if local coverage alone were enough. For city councillors, the coverage does have to demonstrate them as significantly more notable than the norm before it gets them over "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" — because local coverage of all city councillors always exists, their coverage does have to nationalize into media beyond the purely local before the councillor can be deemed "notable because coverage exists". You can't argue that local coverage alone is enough to pass our notability standards for city councillors while simultaneously arguing that city councillors can be distinguished between "notable" and "non-notable" ones — if local coverage alone were enough, then by definition every single city councillor in existence would pass the notability test since no city councillor ever goes locally-uncovered. The distinction between a notable city councillor and a non-notable city councillor, rather, is whether or not the media coverage expands beyond the geographic range in which media coverage is expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject's service on the council and coverage of his campaigns. The subject does not appear to have any non-local coverage. The most substantive article discussed thus far in the discussion - appears to be [58], and this coverage is within the scope of the the subject's campaign. The usual practice to evaluate losing candidates for public office is whether the subject would be notable before the political campaign (or after) for reasons other than the campaign. In this case, that bar does not appear to have been met. - --Enos733 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets
WP:GNG. I fail to see where the standard that Bearcat cited is in the guideline. And "routine" is items like "Wedding announcements, sports scores, and crime logs", not electoral candidates. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Elections are events, and therefore are covered by ROUTINE. All candidates in all elections and all city councillors in all cities always generate some local media coverage, so none of them would ever fail GNG if that type of coverage were enough in and of itself — but our notability standards for electoral candidates and city councillors are that they are not all automatically notable just because local coverage exists: at that level of politics, the coverage has to demonstrate a substantive reason why they can be seen as more notable than the myriad other people who also exist and also garnered local media coverage. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city councillor and/or a candidate for political office has to generate coverage well above and beyond the level of the merely expected level of local coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that some routine coverage of candidates is guaranteed. However, the coverage went beyond posting of results and mentions of candidates. It includes features on the person. I don't think the reason for those features, interest in politicians, should disqualify them as significant coverage. Just because elections are events does not mean we should disqualify all sources that cover the participants. If that were the case, we would have to delete most articles that we have on poltiicans, because all coverage of them is caused by the event, the election. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Every serious candidate in every election gets "features on the person" in the local media too; the only people that type of coverage might not be available for are the obvious no-hoper fringe weirdos (and even then, sometimes it still is.) At this level of office, coverage simply has to nationalize beyond the local before there's a serious GNG claim to be had. And no, we would not have to delete most articles that we have on politicians if that were the case, either — some political offices (presidents, state governors, members of Congress, state legislators, etc.) are inherently notable ones where an article is automatically expected to exist, while some political offices (city councillors, county assessors, etc.) are not inherently notable ones and thus require the sourcing to explicitly show them as somehow more notable than the norm before they qualify. If a politician falls in the former class, then we don't care how local or non-local the coverage happens to be, because the position covers off the notability question — what I'm talking about is what happens when a politician falls into the latter class, by holding a position that is not deemed to automatically confer notability on all holders of it. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't contain a provision that says political figures must be more notable than the norm. They simply have to have significant coverage, even if it is the norm. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then all city councillors would always be notable, because coverage of all city councillors always exists. But that's not how the notability of city councillors works under NPOL — the established consensus is that city councillors do have to be demonstrated as more notable than the norm, and do not get articles just because the local coverage exists. You need to also read
WP:POLOUTCOMES, which explicitly states that purely local coverage is not enough to get a city councillor into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
POLOUTCOMES isn't a guideline. If there truly is consensus for that, then it should be added to the guideline. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
WP:ONLYESSAY. POLOUTCOMES serves to clarify points of potential dispute about how the guideline applies in actual practice — whether this is as it should be or not, we have a longstanding practice on here of writing the official guidelines and policies in very general terms that probably leave a lot more open to personal interpretation than they actually should, and then using essays like OUTCOMES to actually expand on what the guidelines actually mean in specific situations. So no, POLOUTCOMES is not ignorable or dismissable just because it's "not a guideline"; its purpose is to clarify what the guideline means in relation to politicians, which means it's every bit as binding in the absence of a specific reason why this particular person should be treated as an exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I consider the coverage listed as routine coverage of local candidates in local media. Just as every serious car crash in Portland would be covered in the local paper, so are every candidate in every local office, and every councilperson. Not enough for GNG and NPOL. MB 06:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multi-term city council member of the largest city in Oregon, and the SUBJECT of substantial coverage. Not every City Council member of every town is notable, but neither should the lack of election the Portland mayorship (Portland is a massively Democratic city and the D primary was the real race for mayor, not the general election against the D nominee and an R that had no chance) be an indelible mark against inclusion. Passes GNG and the SNG for elected politicians as well. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, "largest city in its own state" is not a notability claim that gets a city councillor into Wikipedia in and of itself; city councillors only get an automatic presumption of notability because city councillor, in and of itself, in global cities which are among the largest cities in the entire world. And all city councillors in all cities always generate every bit as much local coverage as has been shown here, so the coverage of a city councillor in a non-global city does not pass GNG until it nationalizes significantly beyond the purely local, demonstrating that the councillor has a credible claim to being significantly more notable than the non-notable norm. It's flatly impossible, in fact, to argue that some city councillors are notable while others aren't while simultaneously pointing to purely local media coverage as proof that a particular city councillor falls on the "notable" side of the dichotomy — if purely local media coverage were enough, then the "some are but others aren't" argument would be disembowelled because no city councillor ever goes locally uncovered. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The problem is you are not using the accepted standard of local media coverage. The large, metro newspapers that cover large regions are not local coverage, but regional. When you understand and accept that, it is easy to see why city councilors of large cities will usually pass GNG. City councilors of small cities that are only covered in the truly local paper (as in that city only) often will not. However, you see to accept that some such politicians are and other are not, but why? As in we accept that all state level legislators (and equivalents) are notable, why are you drawing a line at city councilors? Not to mention, no where in the GNG does it ever say anything that excludes local coverage or that national or international coverage is needed. Many people like to argue that local coverage excludes, but there is no actual rule. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes true. For starters, I'm not "drawing the line" at city councillors; established consensus of AFD drew the line at city councillors and I'm expressing no personal opinion of my own but simply reporting the plain facts of where actual consensus actually stands. You're welcome to try for a new consensus that all city councillors are notable because local media coverage — but what you're not welcome to do is personalize this as if it were about me, because it's not. AFD consensus decided what kind of coverage is enough to get a city councillor into Wikipedia and what kind isn't, not me. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there was actual consensus, it would be in the guidelines, and it is not there. No to mention, in other debates I have been involved in at AfD came to the conclusion that large metro dailies are not local coverage, but regional. If we go with that consensus, and then added requirement that you suggest AfD has added that for NPOL the significant coverage cannot just be local, then we meet that here. People tried before to try and limit local articles but it failed, showing no consensus to limit coverage on topics such as city councilors. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how local vs. regional works in relation to NPOL. It's not the geographic range of where some of a newspaper's readers happen to be located that determines whether a city councillor or an unelected candidate for office has "purely local" coverage or "more than purely local" coverage — it's where the paper's editorial staff are located that determines which type of coverage it counts as being. Even
Alpena News instead — the places where the coverage is coming from have to "go national", not just what supplementary places coverage produced in the person's local market might happen to also get read. In 2016, after all, any newspaper that has a website at all can quite accurately claim to have worldwide distribution, thereby forcing us to keep every city councillor in every city and every unelected candidate for every office. So it's where the content was produced that determines whether a subject's media coverage is localized or regionalized or nationalized in scope, not the size of the local media outlet's extended distribution area. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:14, 21 December 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 22:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Copeland

Michelle Copeland (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)

Basically an advertisement for her practice and hr line of skin care products. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

change to weak keep from keep (see comments two paragraphs below) - this article went through three rounds of AFC, so it's had its share of eyeballs. I, like DGG above, was a bit troubled by the skin care info, given that I'm unable to find any media coverage indicating notability, so I just deleted that section. Feel free to add info back that can be sourced showing notability. My keep vote is based on Dr. Copeland's medical credentials and published papers. Also, I'm interested in the statement that Dr. Copeland was the first woman to get both medical and dental doctorates from Harvard. The Mt. Sinai bio [[59]] confirms the dual degrees - just not that she was first - so if this can be independently confirmed it bolsters her notability significantly. This could also warrant a mention on those colleges' articles. I commented on the COI tag on the Talk:Michelle Copeland page, and also added Dr. Copeland to the Mt. Sinai article's alumni section, since I noticed no other subject articles linked here. It should have been tagged as an orphan.Timtempleton (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by the publication record. Most plastic surgeons publish a fairly large number of fairly trivial articles--according to Google Scholar her citation count is 68, 47, 47, etc -- in biomedicine we usually want to see at least one paper with 100 or more. , For the popular books, they are in 182 and 124 libraries, which is trivial in this field. The two degrees is not all that uncommon for facial surgeons, and represents more perseverance than academic distinction. I don't think it adds anything at all to her notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking DGG's points into consideration and changing my vote to a weak keep from keep. He seems more familiar with the medical field than I am, particularly as it applies to the notability of dual degrees. If the sourcing (not just for the skin care line) can get beefed up to demonstrate notability, I could be convinced to go back to a keep from weak keep.Timtempleton (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - This strikes me as a c.v. rather than an encyclopedia article. Sources showing in the footnotes don't get the subject over the notability bar. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. From DGG's comment the books and the publications are the usual amount for the field. I guess
WP:TOOSOON applies here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:22, 23 December 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 Pets at Home. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vets4pets

Vets4pets (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)

Clear advertising as my PROD still confirms since literally everything, even the books, themselves are still PR advertising, always caring to specify either "The company has this to say today", "The company says", "Words from the company are", etc. and none of that satisfies policy WP:NOT; let alone, the fact the article itself has clear employee advertising including the account Vets4pets-webmaster account, and it's not surprising because this was mistakenly accepted from AfC when no one cared to actually see and acknowledge it. Also, the fact everything is still so blatant, there's no hopeful chances of improvements since it shows it's been removed and restored, because it's clear the company wants this as advertising. I'll know that even searches at local newspapers finds only published and republished company information, naturally from the company itself. There's never any inherited notability exchanges for advertising, especially when it's clear anything available is still once again PR advertising. SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but CLEAN UP. Articles in Guernsey press, plus The Telegraph in Argus and The Guardian. Cut it down to a stub and remove all promo.
YO 😜 18:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and as mentioned above, remove anything overly promotional. There are only three UK vets with entries as far as I can see, this is actually the largest. Shritwod (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still means nothing if the available sources are simply trivial anf unconvincing announcements and company notices, and also if policy WP:NOT still applies. None of the commentd above have actually cited policy, let alone one that would be against WP:NOT. Also, if everything advert-like was removed, all that would exist here is the basic information and that:s not what establishes notability, because the article would only be a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it wasn't clear. Policy cited was it meets
YO 😜 09:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've edited the article and removed a lot of promotional content/spam. In my view, the references do not get this topic over the line of the criteria set out at
-- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the successor company, Pets at Home, which is apparently the largest UK company in its field, and thereforenotable. That's our usualway of handling things when a small company is brought by a larger, instead of makigntwo separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually operates like an in-store concession with its own branding. But that's a reasonable approach. Shritwod (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gardaí strike of 2016

Gardaí strike of 2016 (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)

Meets deletion criteria
WP:NOTNEWS guidelines! Guliolopez (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this Garda strike never did happen. I made this article days and weeks before it was cancelled. The event was cancelled at 1am the same morning so I had little notice to change it. I currently do not have time to edit this article but I recommend it not be deleted. It is suitable for a encyclopedia as it covers a significant event in Irish society. It just needs some rewriting
talk) 16:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Commment It would need significantly more than "rewriting". It would also need moving/relabeling. Per your own note, there was no "Garda Strike of 2016". So, at best it might be relabelled to "Proposed Garda industrial action of 2016". And the content (re)written. But any body content would then very likely and almost by definition seriously skirt the guidelines on
WP:LASTING. Flatly, in its current form, it offers no value to project. Guliolopez (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-event that, even if it had taken place, most likely wouldn't have satisfied
WP:EVENT anyway. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL and per nom. I would've suggested a merge, but it didn't occur so I don't think it's notable. Delete. st170e^talk 00:36, 19 December 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_December_15&oldid=1142223723"