Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 30 April 2 May >

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 no consensus. Given this is the 2nd nomination, and this AfD has been relisted twice, I'm closing this as no consensus thus defaulting to keep.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tricia Raikes

AfDs for this article:
Tricia Raikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication that the principal notability is nort derived from her husband. "Director, Creative Services, Marketing Communications" is director of a section of a section of a large organization, not a high level executive position. Awards from local journals are not reliable sources for notability--significant national level awards are needed. Wjhite House Champion for Change is not a significant award, just an opportunity for PR. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG as is and subject is the co-founder of a foundation, and recognized for various endeavors. I am unsure why DGG is so upset about PR. If someone merits press attention, by definition he or she is notable (for whatever reason). An award that merits press attention is most likely important, too. Being recognized by the Executive Branch of the United States is actually pretty significant. Like Hmlarson, I am also dismayed that this article was relisted so quickly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 4 May 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. Votes are equally split (2 keep and 2 delete), with reasonable arguments from both sides.

SSTflyer 23:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

A Lonely Resurrection

A Lonely Resurrection (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)

Neither source here rises to the level of satisfying criterion #1 of

WP:NBOOK. (Prod was removed) —swpbT 12:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment, found some info gsearching hard rain, ie. Publishers Weekly review [1] - "this captivating follow-up. .. Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.", Examiner.com review (on wikiblacklist so no url)- "Hard Rain is a fantastic follow up novel to Rain Fall. Once again, Barry Eisler proves to be a master of suspense, thrilling his audience from start to finish. With an original and intriguing plot, complex characters, and flawless execution (no pun in intended) Hard Rain ranks among the best novels that this reviewer has ever had the pleasure of reading.", Library Journal audio review [2] - "Matching Silva for the mix of characterization and action, fast pacing, politics, international settings, hyper-competence, and the richness of background details, Eisler’s “John Rain” series is another set of books to suggest to fans of Silva’s Allon. .. the second book, Hard Rain, read by Dick Hill, might please fans of George Guidall more. Hill and Guidall share an ability to enhance suspense, create believable accents, and maintain a deliberate yet intense pace", a Gumshoe award nominee? - [3] - "At the end of Hard Rain, last year's Gumshoe Award-nominated second book in the series,", and a (New York Times?) bestseller? [4] - "and seven of his John Rain books on the New York Times Bestseller list.", [5] - "Translated into nearly twenty languages, Eisler’s John Rain books won the Barry and Mystery Ink Gumshoe Awards for Best Thriller of the Year; appear on multiple “Best of” lists, and have been optioned for film."? ps. if even half of the reviews on author's website here [6] is correct/track downable(!:)) either this is notable or at the very least a series article should be okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examiner isn't usable as a RS on here, so we can't count that. January, PW, and LJ are all good and can be used as RS. I wouldn't really consider Wild River Review to be all that usable for establishing notability for this specific book since it talks about the series as a whole. In order to show notability for this specific entry you'd have to show where they discuss this particular book, especially if you're referencing the awards since it doesn't say which book won the awards, just that it won awards. (Sales numbers don't really count towards notability on here except for when it lands on a notable bestseller list.) Now while we can't use the author's site as a RS for the reviews, that does give us something to go with and many of them would be seen as a RS if we can find the review in question, since outlets like
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for better attention, thus allowing another week of people commenting SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author perhaps as this is still, all in all, questionable for its own notable article aside from the apparent reviews above. Delete if needed also, I'll say, but this is still certainly questionable for solid independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I tagged this as G12 when it was basically just a copy/pasted publisher's synopsis (e.g. from Amazon). Instead of letting it be deleted it was stripped down to a brief description with no sources that doesn't assert notability. Since then, the copyvio has been restored (in part), citing two poor sources. I still think this should['ve] be[en] speedied and redirected to Barry Eisler. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the copyright violation. If necessary, the copyright violation revisions can be revision deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amazon lists several reviews of the book:

    From Publishers Weekly

    Rain Fall (2002), Eisler's first book about Japanese-American Vietnam vet John Rain, a hired assassin for government agencies in Tokyo and Washington, worked so well that the author wisely decided to keep all the elements intact in this captivating follow-up. Once again, the nightscape of Tokyo is painted in beautifully dark tones, scored to the live jazz of the clubs where Rain drinks from a menu of expensive single malt whiskeys. ... Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.

    "[A] relentlessly likeable protagonist." —San Francisco Chronicle

    "A James Bond-style secret agent cum hit man." —Booklist

    "A fascinating, touching and wholly believable character." —Publishers Weekly

    “... a superlative job... entertaining and suspenseful enough to keep you turning the pages as fast as your eyes can follow.” —Chicago Sun Times

    These sources, in addition to the ones mentioned by Coolabahapple and Tokyogirl79, demonstrate that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book passes
    verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 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. Ridiculous. Katietalk 22:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead

Radiohead (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)

Few reliable sources. Many links are expired. The notability of the topic has to be established. See WP:notability' Docteur (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a troll RfD referencing the recent "erasure" of Radiohead's web presence. There are many reliable sources given as in-text citations and the vast majority of links are alive. 108.34.227.4 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 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 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallan Holley

Kallan Holley (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, fails

WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note Thursby16 is the original writer of and primary contributor to the article in question. crh23 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has a main role in
    Paw Patrol, which is in its third season. She will also be in The Angry Birds Movie, though I'm not sure how big her role is. She has also won a young artist award, and was nominated for another. Finally, despite the articles short existence, it has already been viewed 137 times. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the last time so the debate (hopefully) receives some more attention. Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which people in any field of endeavour are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it takes
    reliable source coverage about her in media to earn her an article. If you have to rely on cast lists in cast-list directories like Moviefone or IMDb as your only "sources", however, then you have not gotten her over the bar — and no source present here is anything more than an IMDb-like cast-list directory. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability gets a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - Article fails to meet
    WP:ACTOR. The only sources that can be found are very routine things, nothing that shows notability in any way. When trying to scrape together sources for an article, if the best we can find is something like this, it's a good hint that it's not quite time to make such an article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Minimal career (so far) and there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not noteworthy at this time. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately as she hasn't done very much yet (she is very young of course) there are very few sources that can be used to prove notability. She may well become very famous and we may see her name again in the future. ツStacey (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep' Adequate indicia of notability. I'm noticing a lot of bias against children's programming lately; these programs are themselves of adequate notability and while they are not as extensively covered in the mainstream press as "adult" films, one needs to look to the standard of the world of children's programming and assess within that level. Not everyone has to be Hannah Montana to meet GNG. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 4 May 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. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu (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)

is there a need for a list when only 1 person has held the post? secondly we have very few list of ambassador articles, so I question the need for a list of Consuls-General who are lower ranked diplomats. Also nominating :

LibStar (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a way to Merge and redirect is found. After looking through some consuls-general related pages, I have not found any pages to merge this one into Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Not-very-high-ranking or significant diplomatic posts. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both The scope of a Consulate General is definitely international, and it is certainly notable, this has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Further, if there are very few lists of ambassador articles, then that is a gap rather than a reason to keep other notable topics out. I would suggest the reason it is termed a 'list' for one person is for consistency with other similar articles. Here are some of the secondary sources covering the Chengdu Consulate General with significant depth:
    • Sainsbury, Michael (20 March 2012). "Australia to open new consulate in Chengdu". The Australian. News Corp Australia.
    • Wen, Philip (31 July 2013). "Mission opens door to vast interior". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media.
    • "Australian Consulate-General in Chengdu Opens Officially". Gochengdu.cn. 11 November 2014.
    • One year on: A message from Ms Nancy Gordon, the Consul-General in Chengdu, Australia China Connections Pty Ltd, archived from the original on 21 September 2014
    • Peng Chao (14 November 2015). "Australian visa application center opens in Chengdu". China Daily.

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this coverage makes a list of Consuls-General notable. You've given coverage except one about the consulate not consul general. It's a separate discussion if the consulate is notable. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you've also attempt to
canvass someone into this discussion [7]. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
On the page about canvassing it says 'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus,' which was what my aim was. Here's coverage for Makassar as requested:

Clare. (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is coverage about the office of the consulate not coverage where the person who is consul general is the subject LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing accusations about canvassing isn't helpful, especially given that I'm the author of the Chengdu page (I.E. an '

here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This is presuming ambassadors are inherently notable which they are not. And consul generals even less so. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
consuls do not have sole responsibility of roles assigned to ambassadors unless no ambassador exists in that country. The ambassador always retains full responsibility. In this case, there are ambassadors in China and Indonesia. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps a merge of certain material into the ambassador pages (i.e. for china and indonesia ambassadors) is a better compromise? Not notable enough for their own page, perhaps, but enough to warrant inclusions in a page dealing with the closest subject.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 00:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ludicrous lists given the number of entries and questionable notability of the individuals. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seriously? Both of these roles have only been held by a single person, so what's the need for a list here? I agree that an article on this could eventually be useful, but it's
    WP:TOOSOON for that. Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:33, 11 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Ajlouni

Mohammad Al Ajlouni (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:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral. If article is to be believed, passes
    WP:JOURNALIST. Xxanthippe (talk
    )
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find sources that verifies he passes
    WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article written with too much fluff. Seems to be written for self-promotion. Leaning towards delete, due to too much fluff, yet not much notability. Conspirasee1 (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:43, 1 May 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

SSTflyer 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Los Hombres De Negro y los OVNI

Los Hombres De Negro y los OVNI (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:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as not seriously needing deletion but also not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:42, 1 May 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 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox 2.0

Inbox 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Yahoo marketing code-name that never caught on as an actual term mentioned in a single New York Times 2007 article. --Michael WhiteT·C 04:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 05:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2.0 - sometimes I'll suggest these be redirected to the 2.0 page but there doesn't seem to be a need here. Artw (talk) 01:26, 2 May 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. Debate has been relisted three times and still there seems to be no consensus for any outcomes.

(non-admin closure) Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Corina Abraham

Corina Abraham (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 more a coatrack to talk about Roe 8 than it is a

notable. Abraham herself lacks coverage about her in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Being referred to as "significant" in such a manner is meaningless in terms of notability. "artist with works within a government collection". Which one? City of Melville's art collection? Whoopty fuckin doo. Koori Mail? All is see is a photo with lots of people who attended a conference. Trivial coverage. Melville Herald? A local paper. Whats the nature of the coverage? Given the coverage of Roe 8 let's write an article on not Roe 8? She's not the issue, Roe 8 is. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the notability prior to Roe 8? How does she pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a writ submitter over a complex issue in the public eye in Perth, with earlierreporting Melville Herald and Koori Mail as stated by Gnangarra, it is just a short matter of time that extra refs will clearly further indicate notability of the person against the afd argument JarrahTree 10:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a writ submitter is not Inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why keep?
WP:JUSTAVOTE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe Corina Abraham is notable, and meets
surmountable problem and I've already proposed a solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Your proposed solution would solve the BLP1E issue but does nothing to address the lack of notability demonstrated by the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment suggest a
    WP:SNOW close before the nominator does something that should be avoided Gnangarra 00:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What, like accuse someone of racism? Oh, wait, it was you that did that. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt accuse you of being racist, I said your actions in nominating multiple Noongar Women had a point appearance given you had prod'd an article that I then converted to merge discussion that triggered your nominations and that you should also take care when doing such multiple nomination. Then you come along and respond to every person all of whom said keep, with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo Gnangarra 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've characterized my actions as being racial motivated. then you try to suppress discussion on an article you worked on. and your concerned that I wrote fuck? Why were you keen to suppress discussion? You say I replied to all with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo, please identify some such replies (note plural). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those saying she passes GNG and that there is plenty of sources. Could you please be specific? What sources? What significant coverage outside of Roe 8? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she has been notable for some time, why did it take until 2 April for an article to be created, an article whose entire lead is Corina Abraham is a
    WP:SNOW close here. Notability needs to be adequately established, because it hasn't been yet. If notability can be properly established, I'd be happy to change my vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete definite case of WP:BLP1E. she is only getting coverage because of one issue. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: I can appreciate the arguments about BLP1E. On the other hand, if Wikipedia existed in the 1980s we would've called Eddie Mabo a BLP1E back then too. So I suggest we move it to draft or user space and wait for further developments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having "plenty of refs" doesn't mean a subject is notable. Six of the refs refer to
one event and the other two don't go anywhere near establishing notability. An article can have 1,000 references and still not meet GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
well said aussie. Lots of coverage doesn't override WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Roe 8 and create that article, keeping a good summary of who this person is and her role in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
While I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal I'm not sure how this would work. According to Perth Freight Link#Roe 8, Roe 8 is a 5km extension to the Roe Highway while Roe Highway says that Roe 8 is The Perth Freight Link, which is a bit circular. One would expect that if the extension goes ahead, Roe 8 would cease to exist as it would just become that extra bit of the Roe Highway, or the Perth Freight Link, or both. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in the sources is not even close to extensive, and they certainly weren't enough to result in an article until Roe 8 came along. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FeydHuxtable, could you look again at the Koori Mail source? Count the number of words of coverage dedicated to her then tell us how that qualifies as extensive. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E does apply: her artistic work is trivial, her persona story of the hospitalization is wildly inappropriate content. It is not clear from the article whether she is the principal figure in the opposition, or the person in whose name the opposition is taking court action. I redirect to hte article section on the opposition to the road might be appropriate, at least now. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 22:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP1E over a relatively minor issue, no international coverage. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • World Highways has coverage[10] thats a UK based magazine it even mentions Corina Abraham in regards to activity in December 2015, the writ was lodged in March 2016. Then there is the International Business times based in New York[11](noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case), that has 13 million subscribers publishes in 10 countries and 7 languages Gnangarra 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case that's laughable. If a source can't even name the subject, that's not really a good source for establishing notability of someone. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
two sources the first mentions Abrahams, 3 months before the writs Gnangarra 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG requires significant coverage in sources. It says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." The first source doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage and the second doesn't address the topic (Abraham) at all, let alone directly. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It has already been established that the quantity of sources is irrelevant. Six of the 8 sources are related to the Roe 8/BLP1E issue. A 7th is an extract from a directory of items in an art collection and the 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage and that simply isn't there once you remove the BLP1E content. As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article. It is, after all, just opposition to a 5km road extension and these things happen all the time. A non-notable event can't be used to establish an individual's notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Everything to do with all of the Roe highway extension plans are linked with a particularly messy aspect of current Western Australian politics and is almost reported on daily basis in Perth, Western Australia in relation to the component parts of moving trucks from the eastern suburbs into Fremantle. Just because local editors are not full time producing potential on the subject is not necessarily a reflection on the impact of the issues being squeezed into an assumed 'non-notability' state JarrahTree 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Roe 8 not having a standalone article isn't because of notability, but because it would be a redundant content fork, given that Roe 8 is covered in the Perth Freight Link article. - Evad37 [talk] 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might note that I said "As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article." (emphasis added) If the opposition was great enough, and there were enough sources, there is nothing stopping a separate article being created. Roe 8 coverage in both Perth Freight Link an Roe Highway is pretty limited, but quite appropriate given my knowledge of the matter (my daughter is in Perth for nine months and she has been keeping me up to date) so I do agree it would be a redundant content fork to create a separate article and you can't claim an individual is notable because they oppose something that isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. -_AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Roe 8 has been an ongoing issue for over twenty years, because someone related to you has lived in Perth for nine months doesnt make them an expert on Perth, or Roe 8. Gnangarra 11:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say, nor did I imply, that it did make them an expert. Please note that here in the east we have controversial road projects going on for a lot longer than 20 years. The Newcastle Inner City Bypass, for example, still isn't complete even after 50 years of planning and construction. That Roe 8 has been going on for so long makes Abraham's contribution even less significant. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable is fallacious reasoning, given that notability isn't the only thing that determines whether something has a standalone article. Per
WP:NODEADLINE, so not everything that could be written has been written). - Evad37 [talk] 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable - That's not what I said. You're concentrating far too much on the road and not the subject of this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the one who brought up Roe 8's notability in your comments of 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Is the notability or otherwise of Roe 8 really relevant here? - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant insofar as it is being used to establish Abraham's notability. If the notability of an event has not been demonstrated (this is different to an event actually being notable - an event can be notable without its notability being demonstrated - a lot of articles end up deleted because of this) can we use opposition to that apparently non-notable event to establish notability? Remember, while Roe 8 might be notable in WA, the rest of the world doesn't even know it exists, so to us it's not notable as it hasn't been demonstrated in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a guideline or policy that says we need to consider notability as demonstrated in the article? Because as far as I am aware the usual interpretation, as stated in the
WP:N guideline, is "Article content does not determine notability" and "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In any case, there are sources from beyond WA for Roe 8 such as constructionindustrynews.net, Construction Index (UK), The Guardian Australia edition (1) (2), Shanghai Daily, Lexology.com and heaps of coverage from our national broadcaster ABC[12] (and I recall TV coverage being on ABC News 24, not just the local version of the ABC TV news bulletin) - Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Simply being a custodian, on its own, does not establish notability.
WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we ignore the Roe 8 matter, the subject just does not meet notability requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
also being part of the Aboriginal Heritage assessment that resulted in the site being listed, Roe 8 has a long history as protection of the area, has been already we have a court case from Roe 8 that has impact beyond Roe 8 on the WA Government run by the Save the Beelier Wetlands group which is who Corina spoke for in 2010 6 years before this event. Then the letter addressed to the Prime Minister read into Parliament which is while not unique isnt common either. Now we have her a plaintiff in Supreme Court writ(highest court in WA to commence an action) which also will have impact on some 1600 other sites that the current WA Government has removed from the heritage register. Corinas involvement is not BLP1E because it is significant, her impact reaches beyond the event to other areas and when you look at the FSH aspect her being written about even if you want to describe it as padding for the story wouldnt have occured without her already being of note as a Noongar custodian and public figure, oh and whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. Gnangarra 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. " — That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to Abraham's notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but it is relevent in the sense that Corina was affected by those events, it demostrates that she has a level of community recognition(notability) before/beyond the court case. Gnangarra 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being reported in the news might be relevant to her notability, but the "controversy ... failures in the management [of FSH] ..." have no bearing on her notability, which is why I said that they were irrelevant to this discussion.
Actually I'm not so sure that the article adds to her notability - she was mentioned because she was in surgery at the time of the FSH flood, not because she was a notable Indigenous elder or Roe 8 opponent. The FSH article does not mention anything of those; it merely describes her as "A 38-year-old woman". Wikipedia:Notability#Events says "routine news coverage ... is not significant coverage". I know that is about events, not people, but the principle is the same - the news article is about FSH, not about Corina Abraham. If the Wikipedia article is kept, then the FSH item and ref is worth keeping (it's related to her health issues, which are notable if she is, and also covered by another ref), but I'm not so sure it actually attests to her notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that we don't need to keep any of the FSH content or the ref. There is already a ref that supports the claim about her health problems. The FSH issue is just being used to pad the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're drifting off topic here. Perhaps we should defer discussion about the FSH content until if/after any decision to keep the article. (Similar to Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames let's talk about it 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest something that is relevant to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails
    notability is not inherited. Obviously no prejudice against re-creation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep arguments in favor of inclusion cite existing guidelines including WP:NLIST and WP:PILLAR, Wikipedia does operate as almanac. Valoem talk contrib 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by sunshine duration

List of cities by sunshine duration (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 case of

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and this list will never be completed anytime soon. Most of the data seems to have been copied from their respective Wikipedia articles. Some places, such as parts of southern Chile and the Aleutian Islands do not have sunshine data available, and the amount of sunshine hours received varies greatly from year to year. Also, where are some of the world's sunniest places in that list? Websites gathering sunshine information may be unreliable as well. One city's monthly sunshine information being available on a website may be different on another website. The article may have a problem similar to that of List of places with fewer than ten residents, which was deleted because it was also an indiscriminate and never to be completed list of places with no more than nine people. (edited) Eyesnore 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This curious list of information appears to have no notability in secondary sources as an overall list topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the BBC source - when I looked at the article, I saw what I thought were all primary sources. Still one source, or even two, three or four, don't actually constitute 'significant coverage' in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sunshine is a standard weather measurement which is collected and collated by organisations such as the UN and WMO. Secondary sources report the sunniest cities in the US and the world using this data. The list therefore passes
    WP:LISTN easily. If there's no entry for isolated places like the Aleutian Islands then that's reasonable because there are no cities there. I am writing this in London which is certainly a city but, as usual, there's an overcast and so the sun is not shining :( Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Andrew Davidson: Not every large city in the list is present, many of them are missing and I will still mark the list as a dynamic list. Eyesnore 15:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as interesting and informative. Long-term averages, like average duration over the last n Januaries, are better and editors should be encouraged to improve the page in this way. Removing the page because it can be improved isn't much of an argument and seems counter to the spirit of Wikipedia.   ~ 
    dgaf)  17:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator, very
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If one wanted to see each cities average sunshine duration they could go to the respective article. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete somewhat reluctantly. A lot of work has gone into it, even if semiautomated. Seems to be exact duplicate of data from individual city articles weather sections? So the data is by definition notable in itself. By the way, cannot be compared to 'less than 10 inhabitants'. Cities do always have sunshine of some amount so not arbitrary, although the definition of city could be. The next article will be List of cities by average high temperature and the next will be . . . Ideally all the tabulated weather data for each city should be moved over to wikidata and the tables for each city populated from there, and then this article cold be automatically generated and will always be as complete as there are in existence articles for places with weather data (and this I would strongly support) . . . but as it stands this would take a team of editors doing nothing but keeping it up to date and in synch with the city/town/village articles. The top 10 or top 20 sunshine cities cold be useful (section in another article about city livability perhaps), but a list of all cities/towns/villages manually maintained (and it will need to be kept current if it has any value) will soak up far more wikitime than its encyclopedic value is worth. Aoziwe (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps as I also think this is an interesting subject but am questionable about solidity therefore I suggest deleting for now. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Such lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia like WP, because, according to our most basic principles,
    WP:PILLARS, one of our functions is to have much of the contents of an almanac. Such lists have been traditional almanac territory. They are lists for which people might very reasonably comes here; they are not indiscriminate: they cover the largest cities in each country, and there is no reason they cannot be complete for them, since authoritative data for the table is very easily available . As for other lists by climate indicators, I might well support them also: they're equally within our scope. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly the topic is notable, since there are multiple sources discussing the sunniest cities in the United States and the World. Also, as
    AfD is not for cleanup. Altamel (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per DGG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a very important list as it give the idea of sunlight given in a particular place. I agree with Altamel that some modifications should be made in order to give this list a limit. A bar should be kept like "only the capital cities" or limit it to ten cities in one grid (15 degrees longitude x 15 degrees latitude). The former list would give a limit of no more than 196 cities and the latter would give a maximum of only 2880 cities. (Also since land is there on only 30% of the earth the list would get further restricted to 960) Furthermore, I think that the world "cities" should be replaced by "places" as there are many "places" on the earth's surface which have interesting sunshine data but are not qualified to be called "cities". Arpit.arun.mishra (talk) 10:25, 2 May 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

SSTflyer 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

SpaceNews (television show)

SpaceNews (television show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is barely a stub and has had the ref and notable tags since 2009. A minor news segment on a Canadian network that ended over 10 years ago. Unlikely article will/can ever be expanded due to lack of coverage. Note that most hits are to SpaceNews, a current print/web magazine. MB (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it into
InnerSPACE, its successor. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note the redirect has been removed please read

WP:EDITATAFD. Thank You Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as because this current article itself is still questionable for WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, there's nothing else to suggest keeping this by itself, best connected to its successor likely. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:39, 1 May 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

SSTflyer 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Joleen Lutz

Joleen Lutz (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: thoroughly

non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SSTflyer 03:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SSTflyer
03:47, 23 April 2016

(UTC)
WP:VAGUEWAVE. did you actually look at the sources? Only 2 of them actually cover her as the subject and one of them is IMDB . LibStar (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just not noteworthy as stand-alone article; redirect to Night Court article. Kierzek (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:NACTOR . other achievements do not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Charles Mildin

William Charles Mildin (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)

Apparently this article is being questioned as likely being fabricated (as noted at my talk page) and frankly my searches are simply finding some links at browsers including from news sources so I would not be surprised if it is fabricated as I should also mention the currently listed source is questionable anyway. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A VOTE TO DELETE: The ERBZINE article listed as the sole reference for this article includes a disclaimer or two at the bottom of it stating that the alleged newspaper accounts of Mildin's life in the jungle, etc., simply do not exist. It is a hoax, apparently, and there is no proof that Burroughs was aware of him, regardless. Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a more detailed search on the web just now, I have discovered this article (view front page and Pg. 6 for the full story) where a historian of Streatham pointed out that the title "Earl of Streatham" does not exist!
If the 1959 Journal publication turned out to be hoax, then it raises questions as to who the real-life Tarzan-like character really was based-upon. Or was the author Edgar Rice Burroughs merely using his pure imagination (similar to Jule Verne's entirely fictional 20,000 leagues in the sea?) to fabricate an idealised utopian scenario. Anyway it seems as if one author purports to know the origin of the Tarzan story? --Ælfwyn5 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is attributed as a hoax at the very beginning. The first sentence of this article reads "Warning: the following story is a hoax, created by Llewellan Jones's article. No William Mildin is attested in contemporary sources, and no Earl of Streatham ever existed." Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That hoax attribution was added well after it was pointed out to the admins that the subject of the article did not exist. Sir Rhosis (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:36, 1 May 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

Color wheel theory of love. MBisanz talk 00:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Love styles

Love styles (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 not about the very wide variety of topics that I, in common I assume with most of us, I might consider "love styles> Rather, it's the terminology used in one particular [Color Wheel Theory of Love]], the metaphor used by a single psychologist. As there was no agreement to merge some of this pop-psychology into the more comprehensive article

Color wheel theory of love that should be deleted, along with the mentions of it here. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect is acceptable for me. Delete as I myself reviewed it at NPP and thought it was questionable with the current contents being questionable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Piotrus, ping, another merge option below czar 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:35, 1 May 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

SSTflyer 00:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Institute for Psychological Therapies

Institute for Psychological Therapies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:ORG. Off-handed mention in one book? Not good enough for Wikipedia notability. jps (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 14:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. 2 of 3 sources cited in the article are primary. The 3rd is a book from a non-notable publisher. The 2 gnews hits that OP mentioned aren't reliable. Other than that one book, I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources independent of the subject. PermStrump(talk) 05:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ralph Underwager‎, which seems to have already been done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as this seems best connected to that and there's nothing to actually suggest better noticeable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 20:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not noteworthy as stand-alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to
    WP:RS content found on this institution at some point in the future. SJK (talk) 13:15, 8 May 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 per

(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Dimension Travel Trilogy: A Three Part Science Fiction And Fantasy Novel

The Dimension Travel Trilogy: A Three Part Science Fiction And Fantasy Novel (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)

conflict of interest since the author of the book and the article are both named Joseph Salvatore Pidoriano. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Clearly a non-notable, self-published book. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The overall pages by the editor are fairly promotional, so this looks like it was one part of an attempt to promote the book on Wikipedia. However I'm not sure if this one would be considered promotional enough to speedy. There's really no chance of this surviving AfD, considering that it's a self-published book that doesn't seem to even have a presence in the book blogosphere. We couldn't use the blogs anyway, but the lack of even blog sources is fairly telling. If no one minds, I think I may close this early.
    (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete - shameless and unsalvageable advertising by author of a non-notable, self-published work. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No references, book is self-published, no reviews. Fails all tests. I did a search and ABEbooks had one seller that was selling it as "printed on demand". Another page turned up the fact that the author is 19 and this is his first book. Chutzpah- if nothing else. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:07, 2 May 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. Votes and arguments roughly split.

SSTflyer 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Parker McGee

Parker McGee (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:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

How does this entry fail
WP:MUSBIO
exactly? According to "Criteria for composers and lyricists", a composer may be notable if they have; "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." England Dan and John Ford Coley's "I'd Really Love To See You Tonight" charted in 1976 on Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 for that year, at the #21 position.
Your assertion that this composer's entry also fails
WP:BIO concern, this can easily be overcome through diligent research and editing by any interested contributor. Edit Centric talk 00:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be able to be fixed, but it's very poorly sourced and promotional. I could blank most of the article per
    WP:TNT. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. he is notable, as he wrote a song in the top 100 chart. This meets notability, just lots of issues. See
    WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finrod Felagund

Finrod Felagund (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 fictional has no

talk) 14:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A major figure in the Tolkien legendarium, and the subject of significant critical attention. Note the dozens of Google Scholar hits and such commentary in (non-fannish) academic books like this one [13], to say nothing of popular commentary. No doubt there's Tolkien cruft that might be pruned, but this is an example of an article on a significant character that merits expansion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it's still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "parent" is already notable. There is more than enough material here to justify a split off the parent, even ignoring the other points raised. Where exactly would you redirect this? -- RM 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to
    WP:WAF. While it is conceivable judging from the above that a policy-compliant article could be written, as it is the article would need a total rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective and can therefore be safely deleted.  Sandstein  16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yes, a proper article about this topic can probably be written. But this is not it. It's fancruft that can be deleted, until such time as somebody competent recreates the article. Publishing articles that are 95% fanwankery is detrimental to Wikipedia's overall quality.  Sandstein  20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can an article be improved if it is deleted? That is why there are notability guidelines, which this clearly meets, and content guidelines. Citing content guidelines is rarely a valid reason to delete. Even if the article has to be changed a one line stub to fix content guidelines, this still does not change the fact that it is notable. And who cares that the quality of total articles is lowered by some very small amount? It's a work in progress, let it do its thing. -- RM 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 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. Adequate policy-based rationals for deletion have nor been refuted by any of the "keep" arguments. Clear consensus to delete. No prejudice against redirecting or merging. Will userfy upon request. Swarm ♠ 00:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caranthir

Caranthir (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 fictional has no

talk) 14:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curufin

Curufin (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 fictional has no

talk) 14:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 May 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. There are legitimate points being made here, and disagreement over whether the content should be kept, pruned, merged or deleted. But without any consensus for deletion, I will close this now and leave further discussion about pruning or merging to the talk page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maglor

Maglor (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 fictional has no

talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep
    Silmarils, this article could certainly be improved from its current state. There are plenty of non-Internet sources available discussing Tolkein's work in scholarly fashion. I say "weak", however, because I'm not sure if the sons of Fëanor are really that notable independently. clpo13(talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 May 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 Hairspray (1988 film). MBisanz talk 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Ann Powers

Leslie Ann Powers (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 article fails

WP:NACTOR. Besides, Powers has appeared in only one film to date. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hairspray (1988 film). On another note-I now want to know what happened to this person! Are they alive? (probably, but its just one of those things!) Wgolf (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:52, 1 May 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 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The White Noise

The White Noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a two year old musical group. Fails

WP:BAND for lack of available independent sources. - MrX 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as I'm not finding convincingly better, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References are mostly user contributed sites, social media, or promotional. The sole reference that doesn't fall into that category, New Noise Magazine, is hard to judge on merit. While it gets national distribution in music stores and the like, it seems somewhat "niche" and, to my mind, a single review in such a publication doesn't translate into significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fearless Records (as The White Noise's record label) is a reliable source and the biographies on Reverb Nation and Pure Volume were both written by the band. Additionally I have since added sources to Alternative Press (which connotes media coverage as one of the most popular music magazines) and itunes (which I believe is a reliable source). Issan_Sumisu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (GMT)
Note to Issan_Sumisu, as the author of the article you are entitled to an explanation of why this is failing. It's not a question of how reliable the source is. The problem is that a bio on the band's label is promotional. The write up in Alternative Press is a simple regurgitation of a press announcement from the band (or its label?). And being on iTunes does not convey notability. Add a dozen more similar references and it still wouldn't meet notability if the tone is promotional or self serving. The sources need to be independent of the band's promotional interest. So far only one (New Noise Magazine) meets the criteria but, as stated above, doesn't add up to much. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only source I could find was [16], which is way too thin to be a source. Fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:32, 2 May 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 Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. MBisanz talk 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities in Sheboygan County

List of largest cities in Sheboygan County (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 enough content to justify a split from

Sheboygan County as a Stand Alone List. "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Royalbroil 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Far too specific. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sheboygan County, Wisconsin or just delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as said above, maybe include some sort of cities by pop. list into that article Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge table to Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, something that could have been done through normal editing and discussion (neither of which were attempted) rather than wasting time at AFD. Also note that these are the largest municipalities; only three are "cities". We can't use "city" as a generic term in a jurisdiction that uses it to refer to a particular class of incorporated community, as I believe all U.S. states do. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ducks seem to be quacking to me that the creator,
    chatter) 03:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:50, 1 May 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. Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression olympics

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 am not sure if this should be deleted or not, however I still nominate it b/c: a) It is presented using a lot of scientific speech without including scientific sources b) It reads like a political essay, c) sources include YouTube and tumblr pages and d) the user who created this article has also created

Special snowflake, which is also up for deletion. Laber□T 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'm still not sure about the relevance, but at least now it won't need a rewrite if it is kept.
    WP:ESSAY no longer applies. --Laber□T 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with Anticla rutila's fixes it does not read like essay anymore, and topic seems to have sufficient notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure that the reasons given for deletion are particularly valid. AfD is not cleanup, and at any rate the article appears to have been improved somewhat since nomination. Nor is infrequency of use necessarily the same as non-notability: probably "
    subaltern studies" is not a widely used phrase, but it is notable. Potentially one source which isn't in the current article is this from the Washington Post. There's also this book (if the Gbooks link doesn't work, it's Hancock 2011, Solidarity Politics for Millenials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics); and potentially this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you for those leads Cecil, I read through each one. I introduced an observation from Ange-Marie Hancock's book. Anticla rutila (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should definitely be improved; at the moment both knowyourmeme.com and Geek Feminism Wiki are explaining the concept much better than this article. That said, there can be no doubt that "oppression olympics" is by now a well-established term among activists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences. 58,000 Google hits, including 374 in Google Scholar and 672 in Google Books should put notability beyond reasonable doubt. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft instead if needed as this is still questionable and would be best put aside for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article in its current form isn't terribly well written, but can be improved. Moreover, we clearly have reliable references testifying to the existence of this concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Chinatown USA

Miss Chinatown USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Chinatown USA Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG, unsourced The Banner talk 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:44, 1 May 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. Northamerica1000's comments here and edits to the article provide sufficient evidence of notability. The primary concerns raised by those advocating deletion can be addressed through the editorial process. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naktuinbouw

Naktuinbouw (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)

selfpromo / promo / not sourced conform

WP:RS / doubtful notability The Banner talk 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – See
    WP:NEXIST, and check out available literature using the Google Scholar and other links in the Find sources template atop this discussion, and also the literature I have listed below. North America1000 07:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Delete - I agree with NA that the organization may pass
    WP:TNT. If someone wants to take it on as a project to develop, I would have no issue with it being draftified/userfied. But we really shouldn't be having promo brochures on Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. This is a government mandated inspection agency (i.e. autonomous public authority) for the Netherlands with even a quick reading of their about page and other sources.[17]. It has no problem meeting notability standards. Similar agencies that do this work in the US for instance (and less confusing English) include the Plant Variety Protection Office and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Arguments for deletion including advertising, spam, etc. relevant to companies appears to be mistakenly applied above.
What I'm seeing in the article itself appears to be language typical of a non-English speaker that just sounds odd and promotional to native speakers. It only needs a rewrite to fix that problem in tone, which again isn't a notability problem warranting consideration here.
talk) 21:02, 3 May 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 Deleted as G12 (Copyright violation). — Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Medical Informatics

Applied Medical Informatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable journal. Fails

WP:GNG for lack of available independent sources. - MrX 19:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete [18] appeared to demonstrate minimal impact and notablility, no secondary source beyond indexing services were found during cursory search, article itself is written in a promotional tone with no inline citation. JWNoctistalk 12:56, 2 May 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 Already deleted. This article was deleted by speedy delete while this AfD request was in progress. (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dawn Tartaglione, D.O., FACOS

Dr. Dawn Tartaglione, D.O., FACOS (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 claim of notability and appears to be promotional. This article is also an autobiography hence the creators username (DawnTartaglione (talk · contribs)). — Music1201 talk 19:15, 1 May 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 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jackson (American politician)

Bob Jackson (American politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced

WP:GNG. This was created, for the record, by the same user who simultaneously created bios for each of the same city's municipal councillors, which I nominated a few days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Fitzgibbons. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 9 May 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 00:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumalgarh

Kasumalgarh (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 was originally written in Hindi and had been left untranslated for 14 days. Then it was prodded according to the procedure set out at

WP:PNT. Soon after the prod, the current text was added which looks like a badly-done automated translation of the Hindi version. In its current state it is even worse now. In my opinion the article is beyond repair and should be rewritten from scratch in proper English. The 14 days of time for translation are up, and the current version does not deserve the attribute "translated". De728631 (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that there is a draft version at Draft:Kasumalgarh, so there is even less need for this to be in mainspace. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as barely comprehensible, nothing at least minimally better for a better Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with you! --208.54.4.142 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as this is suggesting it's clear enough to simply close, with there being enough information to perhaps suggest a separate article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Boulton

Agnes Boulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has not been the topic of multiple non-trivial independent discussion in reliable sources. References consist of obituary (

WP:NOTINHERITED). A Google search turns up nothing to fill in the gaps in the notability claim. KDS4444 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 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 The result was keep, per clear

consensus. There's no need to have this AFD open. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexander Prokhorenko

Alexander Prokhorenko (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 Pass GNG as per

WP:SOLDIER. The award of "Hero of Russian Federation" does not give much in the line of notability on its own as it is awarded to lots of people (more than 900 recipients). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Yeah. It's disappointing. How long does it take to get the final decision in a AFD case? Muvindu Perera (talk) 07:33, 2 May 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 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure science fiction

Adventure science fiction (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)

Entirely unreferenced personal definition of a "genre" that is not critically recognized as discrete or meaningful, or meaningfully defined. No meaningful conent. Linked only to a publisher's now-defunct advertising page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - hmm, edit by nominator, no comment. Generally Adventure science fiction / sci-fi adventure is frequently used term, many film pages uses it. Article should be expanded and improved, not delete. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     17:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term would seem to include all science fiction. It certainly does on Amazon, where the entire list of books on science fiction is a subhead of "action and adventure" --see their [[19] [[20]] pages. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no references are cited proving the existence of this genre. — Music1201 talk 16:10, 1 May 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. MBisanz talk 00:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial objections

Trivial objections (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)

DePRODed. Concern was: Article has been marked as unsourced, as having original research, and as being written as a personal reflection for four years. No changes have been made. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added a reference to Madsen Pirie's book for sourcing. My opinion is Neutral on whether the article should be deleted. Tevildo (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - Well explained and one of the well known fallacies of diversion. I’ve now added multiple references to support the statements and removed tags. - NQ (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - now sourced, as stated above. While similar to some degree, "straw man" is not the same and this article is relevant to Wikipedia for the point being made/explained. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets
    WP:GNG: [21], [22], [23]. Some of these book previews go beyond the first listed page, but are unviewable after the first page. North America1000 00:18, 9 May 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

Dinobot. And merge such content as may be appropriate.  Sandstein  17:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Swoop (Transformers)

Swoop (Transformers) (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 grouping of similarly named characters that fails to establish notability. Other than one minor "top eight" article, all the references only reinforce fictional details and obscure toy details that don't belong in an article in the first place. There are various Transformers character lists that can handle the fictional details in appropriately brief summaries, so a separate article is not necessary at this time. TTN (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'll go along with a merge to
    Dinobot. I don't think Cracked.com and price guides are good enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - this may not be as important of a character as the related Grimlock, but looking over the two unsuccessful AFDs on that article, I see that several users found a reason to keep it (including GoodDay, Dream Focus, Mark viking, Colonel Warden, and Jclemens) so maybe they can find sources to improve this article as well? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we've got individual articles on the four other Dinobots. GoodDay (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we have, though? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems appropriate. If it is kept (and I think I'd want to see some more secondary sources before supporting that), it should be cut back quite significantly. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    What content are editors suggesting should be merged? The character is mentioned within the Dinobots so a redirect is feasible and appropriate. There are virtually no reliable secondary sources in this article and I don't see how merging this is going to improve the target, in fact it will lead to serious undue problems. AIRcorn (talk) 02:01, 8 May 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 Rave. MBisanz talk 00:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Bass Network

Drop Bass Network (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)

While DBN has some notoriety in niche circles, there isn't any

?) It's only mentioned in passing in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. A redirect to an article on early American rave culture (esp. in the Midwest or Chicago) could work, if necessary. czar 13:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 13:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: A Google News search and scour through a couple of common music sources has turned up nothing which compels me to suggest keeping this article. The article itself does not contain much content - I do agree with a redirect. -- samtar talk or stalk 13:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing notable about this production company, but a redirect could be beneficial as stated above. --Shootingstar111 (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then Redirect when that's available as there currently seems to be no actual article for that, my searches only found a few links thus article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 8 May 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 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Clousing

AfDs for this article:
Ricky Clousing (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 discussed at a previous AfD, which closed as Merge. The merge ended up being contentious and was ultimately brought to deletion review. The result of that review was to relist it here. There's a lot of good background at the DRV which I'm not going to try to summarize here, but I encourage all participants in this new AfD to go read the review before commenting here. My listing this at AfD is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 May 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 as no one is suggesting deleting but also not avidly and largely suggesting Keeping itself either (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flandal Steelskin

Flandal Steelskin (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 character article currently only has primary sources, so it does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 1 May 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. Nakon 22:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for OneWorld Health

Institute for OneWorld Health (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 was created in 2008. There seems to have never been a time in its history when it was backed with citations to independent sources. It fails

WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 I am not sure that even two of these feature this organization as the subject. They seem like incidental mentions. Could you, or would someone, just identify two good sources? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See
significant coverage about the topic. North America1000 17:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable from what I found. [24],[25] seem to discuss the organisation in detail. This [26] is an interview, but discussed the organisation as well. There are other sources, but I only looked for 3 independent and reliable sources where the organisation was the major focus of the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:15, 1 May 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 List of things named after Donald Trump. Opinion is more or less evenly split between delete, merge, and keep, more heavily weighted on the delete side. The merge seems like a reasonable middle ground.

On a personal note, it's a silly article. Nobody but a hard-core plane geek cares what kind of engines it has or where it was assembled. But, whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Force One

Trump Force One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's "coverage", but as an article subject, completely non-notable. Content can be replicated into the article on Donald Trump. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, also say no to causing trouble Unfortunately, the nominator of the AFD is in a heated argument with me so this should be speedily closed and reopened only if another editor submits it. Keep because it has notable coverage as the PRIMARY topic of several articles, not just a passing reference. Most private planes do NOT have coverage but this one is very special and does meet WP guidelines. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Include in article on Trump. VanEman (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Article subject has significant coverage in multiple reliable resources, and thus meets WP:GNG. As per Whiskeynouth, the timing of this AFD is a bit suspect. Nominator should take care to follow WP:BEFORE. I feel the nomination should either be withdrawn or closed as speedy keep. AFD is no place to start drama because one may be in a dispute with another editor. Please let us judge articles on their own merit. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss articles and edits, not editors. When one chooses the opposite, that's when drama starts. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 12:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Talk} 17:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Wrong, replicating it to the Donald Trump article would create a firestorm because he is running for President. It would be considered so different from his biography that it would be considered pointed to add. Try adding the cars that Hillary drove to her article and it will be speedily deleted from the article. No, don't mix politics and Wikipedia. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Whiskeymouth: Thank you so much for your expansive, and illuminating, answer as I most certainly didn’t think of the political ramifications regarding this article. Picomtn (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure where I've expressed my opinion on this matter. Can you please provide a link? --
my talk 18:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @
Eleassar: Sorry about that, I mixed you up with the nominator for deletion of this article while I was at the same time talking to you about another one. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Daily Mail source (as painful as it is, it satisfies GNG). I would discount sources that are newer than a year or so as
    WP:INHERITED coverage of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, but that does not empty the reference section. Not much opposition to a merge and redirect to Donald Trump, but the target article is one of those from the "permanently too long" category. Standalone notability + no good way to merge = article. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Per below, there is however a potential merge target at List of things named after Donald Trump. I still think keeping as standalone is better, but I am less sure now. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It's notable. And this appears to be a bad faith request. FHB7695 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC) (account has been blocked as a sockpuppet)[reply]

  • Keep but reconsider title merge into List of things named after Donald Trump - I didn't even know this article existed... : it seems "Trump Force One" was simply a whimsical name coined by the media that has been repeated. There seems to be little indication that Trump himself (or indeed anyone other than a dozen or so political journalists) is referring to the plane by this name. astro (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a better title? That seems to me to be the
WP:COMMONNAME for it, even if not the official name. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • According to his campaign he was using a private
    Talk to me 16:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
None claimed that notability is inherited from the owner. The fact that some or most of the sources are not GNG material is irrelevant, as long as some of them are (
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). And while I hate the Daily Mail as much as every sensed person, this is detailed coverage from an independent and reliable source. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Very true, however, doesn't it seem like a
Talk to me 22:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete with all of the coverage of Trump that I have seen (and I have seen a lot - I am fascinated by this presidential campaign), the aircraft does not really feature; the coverage is along the lines of "he projects an image of being a man of the people but he gets around in a big-ass plane", or "he says his plane is bigger than Air Force One but it isn't". There is nothing remarkable about a tycoon having a large aircraft. The late Kerry Packer owned a Douglas DC-8; Rupert Murdoch had a Boeing BBJ for years and Reg Grundy owns a BBJ; John Travolta owns a Boeing 707; Roman Abramovich has a Boeing 767; and Larry Page and Sergey Brin share another one. Ted Cruz has been using an airliner during his campaign; Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have both been heavy users of private jets in their campaigns. YSSYguy (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Is it ACTUAALLY named Trump Force One?? or is that just media hype? A non-notable aircraft. Mention could be made on DT's page but no need for a full-blown article on a subject that has virtually no direct references!!
    WP:GNG, plus who the hell cares!!--Petebutt (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Who cares what the "official" name is (if it even has one)? TigraanClick here to contact me 09:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
A fair plan. Not sure if that exists, but we do have List of things named after Donald Trump. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the moment, the "article" Trump Force One is basically a dictionary definition: "Trump Force One is a Boeing 757-2J4ER that is the personal aircraft of Donald Trump, powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-535E engines." A significant proportion of that sentence is padding, as is the rest of the "article" - why would anyone who isn't an aviation-fanboy care to know which airlines it flew with, or what kind of engines it has, or that it can't be tracked on the websites of Flightaware et al. (which is pretty common for corporate jets anyway - Greg Norman's plane can't be tracked, nor can Nike's, or News Corporation's, or John Travolta's, just to name four)? Does anyone think Wikipedia needs to document its interior fitout? At the risk of being howled down with OTHERSTUFF and so on, compare that with WP's coverage of another Boeing 757,

Ed Force One, about which much more has been written than Trump's 757. YSSYguy (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There are thousands of aviation fanboy articles, as you put it. Thousands of video game articles and TV episode articles. No, the criteria for keep or delete is WP:GNG, of which this passes. So it should be a keep. Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the article's creator, why do you think "Trump Force One is a Boeing 757-2J4ER that is the personal aircraft of Donald Trump" needs an entire article? YSSYguy (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. I have previously written that if people are mad that Wikipedia has a lot of wacky articles, like porn stars, high schools, TV episodes, etc. there should be a Wikipedia wide discussion on what we want WP to be, not picking on articles that clearly meet the notability guidelines. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Whiskeymouth:, you have answered a different question; I didn't ask why WP could have an article, I asked why an entire article for what is essentially one sentence is necessary. Several merge targets have been suggested now, albeit one (Trump Shuttle, which was an airline) being unsuitable. YSSYguy (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which multiple merge targets? The only plausible one I see is List of things named after Donald Trump. (Donald Trump, for instance, is a bad idea) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, you think there is no room in the Donald Trump article for "Trump uses his own aircraft, a converted Boeing 757 airliner nicknamed Trump Force One by the media, while campaigning"? Even with the phrase "formerly owned by Paul Allen" included, it isn't much. YSSYguy (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant nitpicking

First of all, the amount of stuff that could plausibly be put in the Donald Trump article vastly exceeds the reasonable volume we can use. Even if this particular stub is short, that is one thing among a zillion others. So the criteria is not really how short it is or will be, but whether it is better to include this or that (though the ratio of relevance to length may be a criterion). However:

  1. I think other parts are more easily split off or compressed more in the main article (e.g. the business venture, the run for president, etc.)
  2. We can try anyways, and split off later if the need arises.

TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning follows an argument I read at some other AfD that !voting merge should be accompanied by a notice at the target page's talk, to avoid potential "transplant rejection" (editors on the target page may be overwhelmingly against inclusion even if the AfD is supposed to represent community consensus). I notice that a mention has been made on the target TP, we will see what editors there will say, but I would assume that putting stuff in a controversial article is probable to generate discontent. When RfCs are flying around to choose the placement of a comma, you do not like outsiders casually tossing in a paragraph (even if it is not a contentious one).
If the proposal on the Donald Trump talk page is welcomed or at least not opposed, then I absolutely agree with a merge and redirect there. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I and others will expand it as soon as the article gets taken off death row. Few people who are not crazy are going to spend the effort because their effort may be wasted if the article is deleted. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not how it works. You should absolutely be expanding the article now, so that people can see it has a chance to be something more than it is. That's the way you get people to change their minds. It can be done; I've seen it done, many times. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ser Amantio di Nicolao speaks the truth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete and redirect as this is impossible, so am assuming you mean
Merge and Delete. We shouldn't do that either though for attribution reasons. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me clarify: I mean to merge a couple paragraphs about the plane into the Donald Trump page, as proposed here by Picomtn, then redirect Trump Force One to Donald Trump#Trump Force One; this preserves the history. I only said "Delete" in my !vote because this is an AfD, whereas it should have been a proposed merge. — JFG talk 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - This really sounds like some sort of media-hype piece from the title alone. Maybe we can reevaluate its notability when the election is over? Parsley Man (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to List of things named after Donald Trump per Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Just because we can write an article on something doesn't mean we should. It would fit nicely and easily into the list article as a pure copy/past merge into its own paragraph. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a massive agreement to keep but enough debate that it should be kept. I understand that Trump, the person, is much hated but this is a Wikipedia article, not Trump. I also see, after planning to post a comment, that the original submitter, WV, has been banned for a month and has been banned many times before, like 10 times. Therefore, like others above, his comments should be struck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thank you very much wiki (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...says the User who appears to have taken a dislike to the nominator, presumably because s/he undid these edits at another AfD discussion; and who has done very little on WP other than argue at that AfD and make inappropriate comments on various Talk pages. YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't strike comments unless they are of CU-confirmed sockpuppets. GABHello! 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of things named after Donald Trump. While I am seeming a substantial amount of coverage, the page as it stands is simply too close to a bare dicdef, and I don't honestly know how much else could be added to get it past that point. GABHello! 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is annoyingly, sourced and fits to the notability guidelines. Clubjustin (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Few reliable sources for this tabloid-style media-hyped article. No substantial coverage to meet
    WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Sourced and in keeping with the notability guidelines. Tom29739 [talk] 21:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete an article on a well known person's method of transportation? There are articles on yacht's but they're more about it being a fancy luxury item than its practical use. Something similar to this would be the Popemobile but it can't really be compared. How much attention would this plane be getting if it wasn't remotely involved with the US presidential election? Yes this was talked about in what can be considered WP:RS but there is literally so much more than that. Trump has probably been talked about more in the past year than everything related to him before this election combined. You can now find WP:RS about his hands. Please, let's not go that far. Wickypedoia (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this Daily Mail source has been removed on the grounds of
    WP:BLPSOURCES, which is quite wrong IMO since BLP guidelines do not apply to a plane. The thing is that it is the best source in here, since it was published in 2011, way before the 2016 presidential campaign. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge I agree with both@Aircorn: and @GeneralizationsAreBad: that this article should be merged with the existing article List of things named after Donald Trump. I, also, believe that @JFG: wanting to include it on the main Trump page can be accomplished by putting a link to it under the "See also" section that accomplishes this, and which I've begun a talk page discussion about you can read and comment on here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:27, 12 May 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. There's a lot of back-and-forth here, but consensus is that ACADEMIC doesn't apply to this individual, and press releases, while often useful as sources, cannot be used as sources to satisfy notability (this is a longstanding sentiment). It's also worth reiterating that one or a cluster of bios having won an award not meeting notability thresholds does not mean the award is not notable; take it to AfD if you must but I hope people would refrain from single-mindedly nominating other bios. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Brumby

AfDs for this article:
Janet Brumby (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 only basis for notability is a single award. Her position is development manager for an educational charity, which would not normally be a position that would imply any sort of notability. I do not think the award is major enough to confer a presumptive notability. I base this opinion on the award on the description of the career of the recipients listed at Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion and their lack of other notability besides the awards. In almost all cases they are either heads of small businesses that are not themselves notable , or, like Brumby, in less important positions which would not appear significant. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a major national award. What
    WP:BEFORE did you perform before bringing the AFD? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply
    ]
I failed to find anything in News, or anything significant in Google, (I assume if I searched thoroughly I would find an announcement of thee award and some PR associated with it, which may or may not be in Google, but neither would show notability) and I nominated because I am explicitly challenging that this isa major award. Awards given to people who have no other notability are unlikely to be major. This is a test nomination to see the general consensus, if it succeeds I will examine the other recipients.I've put a notice on the talk page for the award. (BTW, AfD1 was a technical error that has been deleted) DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a vacuous argument. This is a major award, and does confer notability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not be discourteous to editors who you disagree with. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hmm. I thought I replied ages ago but it didn't save. I had already read the FT source and should have mentioned that. It doesn't change my mind though since it is just a brief mention so of no use for conferring notability. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as regardless of what news sources I examine, there's nothing actually suggesting noticeably better improvements to completely confirm a better article. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not to be repetitive, but if the award itself is worthy of an article, so should the recipients. It gives me pause knowing that we have articles that are barely two sentences long on obscure fish species but a woman who is doing exceptional things for humanity and is the recipient of a prestigious award isn't deserving of an article? Please forgive me, but I don't understand that way of thinking. Atsme📞📧 02:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
of course we can have articles of prizes where not every recipient is notable: consider Purple Heart. Similarly, we have articles on universities for which not every graduate is notable, and companies where not every executive is notable, and school districts where not every school is notable, and electronic manufacturers for which not all their products are notable. In each case, we get to decide separately whether the mere fact implies notability--some do, some do not. We need an argument why this does independent of "it has a WP article" DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, in essence what you're saying is that the award is not notable; rather, the people who receive it are - which is in itself a contradiction. If the recipients are the ones you consider to be notable, (independent of the award), then you are judging who does and doesn't deserve the award/recognition. My thinking is that YES all recipients of the prestigious award are indeed notable because the award is notable. It is not our job as editors to determine the "degree" of notability anymore than it is our job to determine what species of fish, bird or insect is deserving of a standalone article. Atsme📞📧 22:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I again give you the example of the Purple Heart, a not merely notable but famous award, 99% of whose 1.7 million recipients are not in the least notable. The same is true of the lower ranks of medals of other countries. It is very much our job as editors to determine which awards are prestigious, for otherwise anyone receiving any national level award are notable, no matter how minor the award DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do understand and appreciate the point you're trying to make, DGG. I just don't agree with it, and I'll briefly explain why. Considering the criteria for sports notability where the bar is set so low (having played in at least one regular season or postseason game in a pro league) VS a recipient of the Purple Heart who was injured or killed while saving a life and possibly cost one's own - well, I guess football attracts more readers; therefore, is afforded more coverage in mainstream media, kinda like the Whopper. [[File:|25px|link=]] I think this is one of those instances where we can justifiably IAR. I considered the fact that FEO is university based which makes it academic; therefore, Brumby would meet the criteria for WP:Notability_(academics) in addition to being a recipient of the award. If we also weigh-in on the events associated with receiving such an honor, she passes the notability test. We actually don't have to IAR. Atsme📞📧 03:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Atsme. Looks to me that the award itself does confer some notability. It also is worth commenting that women in business generally are not as well-covered as celebrities or other entertainment figures. Seems to me that adequate indicia of notability is met, though would be nice if there were more sources added. Montanabw(talk) 23:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per Atsme.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This award is notable enough to merit article for the recipients. People who receive this award have to do more than just be excellent in business; they also have to have shown significant time investment in community development. The UK website says that "The Queen's Awards for Enterprise are the UK's most prestigious enterprise awards."[29] Atsme's arguments are also important. We shouldn't decide degrees of notability. Something is either notable or it isn't. In this case, the Queen's enterprise award is notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"significant time investment in community development" is about the vaguest criterion for an award that I can imagine. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm paraphrasing the exact words. Did you look at the website, DGG? The site itself says that "The Queen's Awards for Enterprise are the UK's most prestigious enterprise awards." That seems pretty significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the site's web page claims for itself is not evidence for what it actually is. A site's web page is an advertisement, and not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. Some site websites are advertisements. Not all site websites are advertisements. Evaluating a primary-source website should be done on a case-by-case basis just like we do with books and journals. You cannot make a blanket statement like that about a primary source. Some are reliable, and some are not. The UK government's own website is more reliable than Joe-Blow's blog for example. Since this site comes from the UK government and they have accountability, I trust that statement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Rich . Moscowamerican (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brumby's case is quite similar to Young Stunna's. She has won a major award but don't seem to have multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The article Young Stunna was deleted via AfD even though the artist had won at VIMA Music Awards, a major award in the Asian continent. Stanleytux (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the academic connection of FEO and Brumby are what sets her apart from your example. I also don't see where DGG mentioned the academic connection in his reason for deletion. Might want to take note that academia plays a rather significant role in Brumby's notability. The organization [FEO] has its offices at the University’s Enterprise Centre, and includes the Director of the University’s Knowledge Exchange, Bill Walker, among its founders. Brumby who is the organization's Chief Executive and a holder of The Queen's Award for Enterprise promotion said: “It is fantastic news that this unique relationship has been recognised nationally." See WP:Notability (academics)/Precedents for closer similarities. Atsme📞📧 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Brumby is associated with For Entrepreneurs Only (FEO), where she is the Chief Executive. FEO is not a University or Polytechnic but an organization that worked with a University. Brumby is not a professor, she also does not hold a significant post in any University. Stanleytux (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (academics) - ...an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. FEO's and Brumby's academic association with the university is quite clear with regards to higher education. They are partners. The Enterprise Centre is located on campus and is an integral part of the university's business school curriculum. Isn't the primary purpose of a college education to land a good job and/or establish a career? Brumby says,(my bold) "My career history includes the financial (HSBC), education (University of Hull) and charity (Young Enterprise) sectors." [30] Also see, [31] which states: Their role includes educating, by acting as role models and seeking to engage students in more innovative ways by giving motivational talks in schools and colleges.. This is information that belongs in the article provided the creator of the article and other editors are given an opportunity to expand it. Atsme📞📧 04:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The organization could have established their offices in the University for convenience and accessibility purposes.The FEO is not a department in the University, they are an external organization that signed a deal with the University to train people in business. After the deal expires, the organization and the institution will go their separate ways. Brumby does not work at the University, she works at FEO. Her CV would probably say "Janet Brumby: Chief Executive at For Entrepreneurs Only". If you are talking of higher education engagement, a good example would be Samuel Kalagbor, a University senior lecturer and acting Provost of a notable institution but that article was also deleted despite the man's academic connections. Stanleytux (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Could have"? Hmmm...that sounds a bit like
WP:OR. Our job is to cite RS, and I see nothing wrong with any of the cited sources. The university itself calls it a "partnership". I provided a link to her bio which states her work as education (University of Hull). I suggest following WP:PAG and tone back the speculation. Thank you for the info on Kalagbor. You've peaked my interest, so I'll give that a review when I have time. Atsme📞📧 16:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, that is not WP:OR because a source you provided above says "Being based at the heart of the University’s of Hull campus, access to research and support with innovation and technology development is close to hand." Stanleytux (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"being based at the heart of the university of Hull campus..." does not mean bering part of the university. In fact, ambiguous wording like that almost always means just the opposite, that its an organization of some sort that rents space from the University. A padded resume is a sign of non-notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't shown anything except to assert that ambiguous wording "almost always means just the opposite." That's an assertion you have to prove. Being based on a campus is an endorsement of the organization by the campus itself, unless you can definitively show otherwise, which you have not. You have also not show that the "resume" is "padded." It's just your opinion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All that being based on a university campus shows is that the organisation pays its rent. It is certainly not any sort of endorsement by the university. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has had a long time to improve, yet relies on the single award. I don't buy the idea that the award satisfies Wp:Before - it's essentially a 'job for the boys' industry hand-out given to a lot of glad-handing people after years of service, at let's face it, local level, and not national level. The recipients are local awards - it's just the grandiose title which implies - perhaps less than ingenuously - a national achievement. Onus should be on the article writer to demonstrate the award does in fact satisfy WP:Before and WP:Anybio - which I've yet to see any evidence of, other than pure assertion. I'll gladly change my mind if this can be demonstrated.Tonyinman (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was a link on the talkpage of the article for the award suggesting this was a "test case" for the notability of recipients of the award. That strikes me as an inherently bad idea. The purpose of the award is to confer national recognition on people whose work promoting enterprise in the regional economy is deemed significant. Such work does not universally meet the standards of notability applied here, and if the award is the only national recognition that it gets then it falls under the guideline
    WP:ONEEVENT. However, although each article on a recipient has to be assessed on its own merits, on the basis of the sources available, I would consider the award to create an initial presumption in favour of notability. Over the past year or so I have seen a series of AfDs brought specifically against articles on recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, regardless of how well sourced they were, as though the award conveyed a sort of anti-notability. That really has to stop. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Of course nobody has claimed that, 86.17.222.157, but the pattern is very clear, and the habit is very tiresome. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The award does not confer notability and the subject does not meet any of our guidelines for notability, such as
    WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - See
    WP:Notability (academic) - ....to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. The sources and national recognition by the Queen's award as well as other awards for FEO = success; therefore, notable according to the guidelines. I also find it troubling per Andreas Philopater comment that a series of AfDs have been brought against recipients of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. The argument that the project is not academic despite it being located on the campus of Hull University and is an integral part of the Business School curriculum is equally as troubling. Also, let's not overlook the fact that Brumby does qualify as an academic per notability guidelines as follows: However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) Atsme📞📧 12:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Response to comment - may I suggest that you read my last comment again? Furthermore, WP:Notability (academics) states an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Brumby doesn't have to work FOR the University to be an academic - she works for FEO who partners with the University of Hull, and as such, she is engaged in higher education. The guideline further states: However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article. It's pretty clear. Atsme📞📧 04:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Reply' There is no evidence she is an academic under that criteria. Please provide a source for your assertion. Thanks. Tonyinman (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the award is notable, it does not follow that being a recipient of the award makes her notable because notability is
    WP:NOTINHERITED. Brumby is not an academic because although she works on the university campus, she is not employed by the university in any capacity, let alone an academic one. She has not received significant mention in independent sources and so fails GNG. She is already listed in the article listing award winners but she does not have sufficient notability for a separate article. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. The point of notability guidelines other than
    WP:ACADEMIC is patently absurd, when the only support given for that is that she has rented space on a university campus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The sources provided by Megalibrarygirl and Atsme in support of their arguments convince me that there is sufficient national coverage to pass GNG. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which particular sources do you mean? I can't see any provided by either of those editors that comes close to meeting the requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, but if you can show me otherwise I'll be happy to change my opinion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links to academia to substantiate academic criteria in combo with the Queen's Award and Guardian Award:
These sources aren't enough for notability. Considering each one:
  • University of Hull - this article supports the notability of For Entrepreneurs Only (FEO) because that's covered in the article but does not support Brumby's notabilty. Being CEO of a company - even being quoted as CEO of that company - does not automatically confer notability on a person (because notability is not inherited). BTW this most definitely shows that FEO is a business that partners with the university, but is not part of academia itself.
  • more academia - again demonstrates notability of FEO, and again shows that FEO is most definitely not
    academia
    .
  • gosschalks - press release and does not confer notability. Trumpeting one's own horn (or the company's hires) does not count towards notability; notability is not that someone writes about themselves but that others have written about them.
  • kc - another press release.
  • "The Future of Business Volunteering in Education - this appears to be workshop slides where Brumby's name is at the top of several slides but there's nothing here to establish notability. There are quotes from other people on those slides but it's clear the quotes are not by Brumby nor is it clear that they are about her, and so therefore this document does not confer notability on Brumby.
  • UK's leading business and enterprise education charity - this is a pamphlet on which Brumby is the contact person and which she presumably wrote. Authoring a pamphlet does not automatically confer notability unless that pamphlet is discussed in other sources. Ca2james (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: I fail to see what the problem is with these. They are neutral, they are third-party, and they are extensive. I'm kind of surprised this got relisted, it really can be closed even now as a "no consensus" if not a slight "Keep." Montanabw(talk) 08:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Ca2james has said, most are not independent - being press releases or documents associated with the subject's employment. Even less debatable though is that they are nowhere near providing the extensive coverage required - they are quotes and mentions and fall way short of what
WP:ACADEMIC is ridiculous. SmartSE (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The reasons given for "delete" do not take into account a very important statement in WP:Notability (academics); therefore wrongfully deny notability when the crux of her work has been higher education in partnership with the University of Hull. It is very clear. Please read the guideline, particularly the following in the event it was overlooked (my bold underline): Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. It really is time to close this AfD because the BLP clearly meets the criteria including being the recipient of a highly notable award from the Queen and also the Guardian University Award; the latter being awarded to the University of Hull's 'For Entrepreneurs Only' project for which Brumby plays a lead role. Atsme📞📧 13:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that there is very important problem that I see cropping up in AfD. The idea that a press-release isn't a reliable source is incorrect. A press-release and a work associated with the subject may be biased, but it can still be a reliable source and valid as per Wiki's policies on notability. These sources may not be independent, however, but they may be reliable and can be used to build a case for notability. The independent source of the award helps to build the case towards notability on the side of independent sources. Some articles have to be created using many different sources with varying levels of bias or independence. We need to look at the big picture which takes all of the information together, rather than piecemeal throwing out sources to fit a different narrative. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases can be reliable sources but since notability is based on what other people say about the person, and not what the person says about themselves, they don't help to establish notability. Ca2james (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases aren't always written by the individual. They can be used to establish notability. Like any source, we have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A point of clarification: FEO is not the University of Hull's project, nor is it in partnership with the university; it is an independent business whose key partners do not include the University of Hull, as is made clear on their About Us page. Even if the university was a key partner, that would neither make FEO part of the university nor would it make FEO an academic organization. Also, FEO received the Guardian award, not Brumby.
WP:ACADEMIC
says Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc.). Brumby is not an academic according to this definition.
Reading further, the guideline says However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements. I assume that it's this part of the guideline that is being used to call Brumby an academic, based on the (incorrect) idea that renting office space on a university campus makes one an academic.
If renting space on a campus made one an academic, then the people who work at Starbucks or Tim Horton's coffeeshops would be academics and that's patently ridiculous.
Even if, as is being asserted, FEO was part of the university instead of the independent business it is, not everyone who works at a university is an academic - otherwise, cleaning and office staff employed by the university would be considered academics, which is also patently ridiculous.
Similarly, not everything published on or from a university campus is an academic publication, or else job listings and internal newsletters would have to be considered academic publications, which is again patently ridiculous.
Even if the pamphlet and workshop with which Brumby is associated were academic publications - which they are not - there is nothing to indicate that Brumby is known for these publications. In particular, neither Brumby nor these documents meet any of the criteria set forth in
WP:ACADEMIC#Specific_criteria_notes. Ca2james (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not correct - the University partners with them and it is actually part of the business school curriculum. Perhaps you should read the cited sources so you'll have a better idea of FEO's and Brumby's relationship. We don't need to clutter this AfD with misinformation in an unwarranted attempt to deny Brumby's notability as the recipient of the Queen's Award in addition to all else that meets the criteria of notability. It is clearly stated in WP:Notability (academics); however, one actually has to read the guideline in order to fully understand it. Atsme📞📧 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article UHull has taken on FEO ia a corporate partner of UHull (although FEO does not consider the university to be one of their key partners). This means that FEO is a separate business that provides services to the university; it does not mean that FEO is part of academia.
A business and a university may work together but doing so does not imply that the business is part of the university or that the business is part of academia.
Even if it did - even if somehow FEO was an academic institution, which it is not - Brumby's work is not notable as I pointed out above.
I agree that one does have to actually read the guideline to understand it and that this AdD is cluttered with misinformation. I'm sure this is becoming tedious for everyone. Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - you're mistaken about the association but it requires reading more than one article. The University clearly states the association and it is not at all what you interpreted. Regardless, such a claim is irrelevant. I've already explained the associations in my comments above, and I have faith that whoever closes this AfD will be able to figure it out regardless of your misinterpretations. Atsme📞📧 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was partly mistaken about the association; there is a partnership between FEO and UHull. FEO helps incubate businesses in the Enterprise Centre, takes in interns, and runs workshops. However, that doesn't make them an academic organization (they're still a business offering their services), and it does not make Brumby an academic. Ca2james (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Stanleytux (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was no category for Women in Business, or Women Academics, or the like at deletion sorting so I added notice of this Afd at the project, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Notice of AfD. Atsme📞📧 16:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the notability guideline I quoted above: It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. The definition for academic for the purpose of the guideline: For the purposes of this guideline, an academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education, and academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Higher education includes Vocational education. She is clearly an academic because of the role she plays in vocational education - FEO. Jobs - entrepreneurs - students in business school pursuing careers - yes, we do know what that means. She is considered an "academic" according to our PAGs therefore we can lower the bar per the guidelines regarding sources as it applies here. Atsme📞📧 01:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she qualifies as an academic, which I dispute, she certainly fails all categories of
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
Doesn't have to be a professor to be an academic. See the guideline definition for academic. Atsme📞📧 01:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what point you are making. She still fails all categories of
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
These sources are just public relations blurb. An organization that wants to publicize itself sends press releases to media outlets which lazy journalists print, often verbatim. Most of the sources mention her only in passing. There is no detailed examination of her or her work. As for the last source??? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Moreover, these sources are about FEO, not Brumby, and she's really only mentioned in passing. A bunch of passing mentions doesn't add up to notability; notability requires significant mentions in independent sources. Even if these sources were independent, she's not receiving significant coverage in them. Also, FEO is the integral partner here and even if it's notable, it doesn't follow that Brumby, as CEO of FEO, is automatically notable because notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED. Ca2james (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We have an editor who finds additional sources and you want to say they are not notable because 1) Press releases 2) about her work. First of all press releases can be reliable sources (if potentially biased). Second, a person is often notable for their work. Taken as a whole, mentions do add to notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weight has nothing to do with length of a source. Significance has to do with depth and import. 2000 pages of trifle do not make someone notable. A single statement that they are someone of import which impacts their community has weight. That it is repeatedly mentioned is allowed per WP guidelines to be combined for adequate coverage. She is being interviewed because SHE is seen as the "face" of FEO. If she weren't, the articles would be interviewing someone else who was deemed notable. SusunW (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is every PR spokesperson notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
That is a vacuous question. We are not discussing every PR spokesperson. Only the ones presented. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a vacuous question. It is a well-defined question to which a well-defined answer can be given, although the answer given may differ from person to person. Remember that other editors may not be as familiar with policy as you are so please treat them with
courtesy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply
]
My apologies for calling your question "vacuous." What I mean is that your question is way too broad and despite what you say, it wasn't well-defined. We aren't talking about all PR spokespeople. We need to evaluate the source of each article. I wasn't trying to be "uncourteous" but you should try to be more specific with your inquiries. Sorry I hurt your feelings, Xxanthippe. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The media interviews whoever the company will let them interview. If the media thought she was notable (which isn't the same as Wikipedia notability) they'd do an in-depth piece on her and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Also,
WP:GNG specifically excludes press releases in establishing notability. Ca2james (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
With all due respect, "If the media thought she was notable...they'd do an in-depth piece on her" has been proven over time not to be the case. Media bias is real. I spent the entire day working on sourcing a noted woman artist. The only way sources were found on her was to 1) figure out who she was married to and 2) search for them. Amazing how many sources said, Mrs. sonso, who paints under the name of ... She had a professional name. Media refused to use it, as it does with many women. Media coverage of women is not the same as media coverage of men. And no, I am not asking for exceptions to be made. Is there sufficient information to confirm notability. I think that there is. You think that there isn't. That is a difference of opinion, not a guideline. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of the anecdote. Do you suggest that the subject of the present AfD has another name under which she is better known? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@SusunW: Media bias may be real but it's all we have to go by. Substituting our own bias, in the absence of sources, isn't an improvement. Also, if your artist really was noted, there would be sources on her. That's literally what it means to be noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: My reply to you both is that sourcing for women is different. Harder to find, less lengthy. Weight becomes much more important than length. She won an Emmy for design goes much father toward establishing notability than a longer article which gives minutia of detail about her childhood and education. In this case, she won a queens award, is weighty. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete's sake - it's the combination of the Queen's Award, the multiple sources and recognition plus all the other reasons that were given above. The argument that FEO is notable but not Brumby is like saying Apple is notable but not Steven Jobs. m( Atsme📞📧 05:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is indeed critical for confirming notability. I am quite sure I said that it was and that no one was asking for exceptions. There is adequate sourcing here. I concur with Atsme's evaluation. SusunW (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David and Xxanthippe. Press releases are not considered to be independent sources, under
WP:ORGIND, and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
They're not all press releases, some are news events, several are academic. Furthermore,
WP:BLP
states:
Using the subject as a self-published source: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
*it is not unduly self-serving;
*it does not involve claims about third parties;
*it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
*there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
*the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Counting the number of cited sources, the recognition for being the recipient of and/or profiled in two highly prestigious awards, being involved in charitable work with the University of Hull, being recognized for her exceptional contributions to academia per the numerous listed sources above, it becomes rather clear that the woman is notable. What this article needs is a chance to grow but if we're investing all of our time explaining notability guidelines, we aren't spending it building an encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 14:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because press releases "can be used as sources" does not mean that they are independent sources as required by GNG. Also, I remain unconvinced that recipients of this award are notable. Is everyone who won some award sometime in thir lives notable?
Biały 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not every source has to be "independent." We have to take all of the sources together. Some are independent, some are not. What is important is that there are 1) reliable sources 2) at least one of them is independent. In this case, we have reliable sources that are press releases, academic sources and news sources. The award is independent. Not every source has to be both reliable and independent. The practice of throwing out sources because they are not independent is not a good way to build the case that the subject is not notable. We need to look at the whole of the sources and not just throw out the ones that aren't independent. We need to control for bias, however, in these situations, but bias does not take away from notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that non-independent sources (i.e. primary) can be used, but for establishing notability per GNG, the independence of sources is absolutely critical. We can't take small mentions in independent sources and primary coverage and use this to establish notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is possible that this BLP will be deleted (there is a lack of any in-depth source to support it), it would be best for the whole of this AfD discussion to be suppressed (i.e. removed from Wikipedia, I think WP:Oversight is the term), to reduce embarrassment for the subject. In the event of the BLP being recreated, it could be restored to be available for any further AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
My main concern here in this AfD is that sources which are reliable are being thrown out. These sources are there to support the larger claim of notability which started this discussion in the first place: the award. I am glad to see many commenters support the creation of women's bios and I hope you will consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to help out! However, going back to the award: it is the most important business related award in the UK. That does confer notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation. You will have noted from my contribution list that I have made many edits to the BIOs of notable women. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
You're welcome. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what evidence do you have that the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is the most important business related award in the UK? I worked in business for several decades in the UK, and regularly read newspaper business sections here, but had never heard of this particular award before I came across this deletion discussion. I'm all for increasing Wikipedia's content about notable women, of whom probably millions don't yet have articles, but I'm not in favour of accepting the type of junk sources that have been offered here in support of notability for anyone of either sex. We owe it to article subjects and our readers to ensure that we only write on the basis of good-quality independent reliable sources, which these, despite your protestations, are not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument here seems to be that the hundred or so of recipients of this award since its inception in 2005, on
Putnam Mathematics Competition, although that is a very prestigious award, are not generally regarded as notable enough for biographies. Awards have to be pretty important to be a ipso facto justification for an encyclopedia article. Is there any clear, independent, assessment of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion demonstrating that it represents a similar, highly selective degree of achievement that is widely regarded as one of the pinnacles of attainment in that particular area of work? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
And if we're looking for the top awards for businesspeople in the UK we'd start with a peerage, then would come a knighthood/damehood (both of which would undoubtably confer notability), then a CBE (which is more arguable, but I would argue in favour of it conferring notability), then an OBE and an MBE (which definitely wouldn't confer notability), and below that the various categories of the Queen's Award for Industry (which is well known in itself as an award but in general goes to unnotable small businesses, and this particular category is not well known). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She is not an academic, so
    talk) 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree with your assessment of the subject's work and I am sorry that she has been put through this unnecessary ordeal. That is why I suggested above that this Afd should be redacted upon closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I also think that she has not been "trashed" professionally in this discussion. We have focused on whether or not the 1) award is enough to confer notability, 2) and if the sources are "good" enough to establish notability. No one has made a personal attack on the subject of the article. I think this AfD should stand for 2 reasons: 1) it is being used as a test case by DGG and 2) all Wiki transactions should be kept as long as they are not violations of a person's reputation. Arguing whether or not there is notability here doesn't violate that at all. Whatever the choice of the closer of the AfD (Delete, Keep, No Consensus), I think it's important to keep our discussion along with it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, would certainly have supported deletion if I had seen the AfD discussion that you linked above. Our notability standards for pornographic actors are ridiculously lax as that is a field in which independent reliable sources are very rare. The problem with that field is that few of the editors who support such lax standards are interested in having a polite, reasoned discussion about the matter such as we are having here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the close at that AfD discussion, which should have been "no consensus". I do not feel qualified to comment whether that award is a sufficient condition for notability under WP:PORNBIO. It is often the case that subject-specific notability criteria are mutually noncommensurable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
that we have absurdly lax standards for pornographic actors is not an argument to have absurdly lax standards everywhere else as well. (In actual fact, the standards even for porn actors have tightened in the last few years,they used to be even worse , ) DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this AfD is based on a contradiction because while it proclaims the Queen's Award as notable, it discounts the recipients of the award which is actually what makes the award notable, even after Brumby's notability has been substantiated by multiple sources, the subject's participation in higher education, her involvement with the University of Hull as a contributor to higher education through the University's partnership with FEO, by independent RS and a 2nd notable award for which she was involved as a participant. I'm shaking my head at the thought that you're asking for this discussion to be redacted. Are ashamed of your comments because if they are true, you shouldn't be. Atsme📞📧 21:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contradictions here are in your own statements. Of course an award that is notable can have recipients who are not notable, per the examples of the
battleground, which all of the other participants here have managed to avoid doing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move back to Draft. I do not see a single editor in the discussion who argues that the article is notable, and we see that the whole team was hired to promote a non-notable subject, so that I will also salt it. Drafts do not have to be notable, but next time it goes to the main space it should happen via an AfC submission.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadget Flow

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 company. Most of the sources listed are passing mentions in listicles in obscure sources with dubious independence. Was declined multiple times in

WP:AfC before User:DragonflySixtyseven bypassed the process for no clear reason. Joe Roe (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Joe Roe: Added 10 More references to verify our notability :) Hope that helps!

Hey :@Joe Roe: - Yes, many of the sources aren't primarily about the company, but several are, and the passing mentions give depth to the article. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and we have met that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xqlusivevan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with The Gadget Flow? If so please note that
you are strongly discouraged from editing articles about your own company. Joe Roe (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Joe Roe: Hey Joe, yes I am associated but the editor who initially drafted the story was not because we want it to be written from an individual's perspective. Hope that helps!
@
talk) 12:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
They didn't accept the draft in the usual way (maintaining a redirect and AfC categories for tracking), they simply moved it to article space. In any case, I wanted to open up a deletion discussion with the entire community, not a single user or an IRC cabal. I included their username in the nomination so they would get an alert. Joe Roe (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:Sources Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Thanks :@
    Chrisw80
    :     I went ahead and added 10 more references and fixed the presentation so it doesn't read as promotion, let me know if there is anything else :) Enjoy your day!
  • @Huon: / @Dragonfly6-7: / @Waggie: I'd really appreciate your vote. ---- Xqlusivevan (talk), 22 April 2016, 9:03 (UTC)
  • Return to Draftspace again as I myself was still questionable to this and felt this still need better sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to the Draft namespace I believe that this article can be further improved in the draft namespace. It has a sufficient number of references, but this article is too short. --
    talk) 07:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thanks for the Keep Vote @

Pokéfan95
: - The initial article was 2000+ Words giving information about the team, the early days, important updates, describing the business model etc but the admins found it to be promotional and the version you see now live was recommended from an admin.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, PC Magazine is considered a reliable source, isn't it? The sources MAY not establish enough notability, but there are certainly a variety of reliable sources there and at least some have comprehensive coverage. As I noted above, it may not be enough to establish notability, but it might and is worth taking a good look at it or at least draftifying it for more development.
talk) 07:08, 3 May 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this defaults to keep.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tang Huawei

Tang Huawei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article doesn't seem to satisfy

WP:ARTIST. Google news doesn't seem to have any references except this source [40], which I am not sure if it is reliable. A general Google search reveals links such as [41], [42], which seem to be connected to a certain "LYYF Visual Arts Center" who have been apparently using multiple accounts (Lyyf2015,Tang-Studio Huawei,Tang Huawei Studio) to try to get this article on Wikipedia. Even if I set aside the COI, I am not convinced that the artist is notable enough. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Previously created as Huawei Tang. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who specializes in Chinese biographies, I can assure you that there are tons of famous people in China who are virtually unknown in the West. In a sense China IS another planet, mainly due to the language barrier. Even so, there are many more than one search result in English for Tang Huawei (see Google results). Unfortunately, his name is not spelled consistently in English (Tang Huawei, Tang Hua Wei, Huawei Tang, etc.), which makes searching more difficult. In any case, the Chinese sources I listed above are indisputably reliable. -Zanhe (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you are saying and I appreciate your expertise! I actually spent time in China in 1989 and can corroborate the 'other world' feeling. But back to the search results. I'm not sure why I thought there was only one result: there are about a dozen in the the Google link you pasted above. However the first eleven are very low quality: I see only links from his dealer (LYYFT), from the Milan EXPO, and from other commercial entities or blogs. The twelfth link is from a company that makes knock-off oil paintings. There are no results that are independent of commercial goals. No independent essays. No Musueum mentions, no independent gallery mentions. It's 100% commercial. Now, he might make notability from being in the Chinese pavillion at the Milan Expo-- that was a significant curated show. However, there really is a disconnect between the work I am seeing, the lack of references and critical wriitng, the large number of commercial or dealer links (as oposed to museum announcements or critical writing) in the Google results, and his apparent fame in China. I'm still not buying it, as I there is something fishy going on, possibly promotional, as the nominator correctly detected! If he is really that notable, we should have been able to find something like this to show he is. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a Google search of his Chinese name. The 70,000 results is misleading in my opinion. If you navigate to page 16 of the results, it only shows 156 distinct results. Even out of the 156 results, I believe there are many which are not about this artist (for example [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49],[50],[51],[52] are clearly false positives). The Sohu link is simply about an exhibition (from 20-24 Jan) in Singapore, whose notability I doubt, considering that the Singaporean press has not reported it. I am finding it a bit hard to believe that the artist is notable enough for an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, some of the 70,000 results are false positives. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that there is in-depth coverage from major news portals such as Sohu and Sina, as well as the academic clearinghouse CNKI (similar to jstor). The Sohu link is not just about his exhibition, but also includes a bio of the artist. In any case, the fact that the exhibition is reported in China's national media proves his notability per
    WP:ARTIST. -Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Please stop making baseless claims like this, which you've done before, unless you have solid evidence to back it up. -Zanhe (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh the irony. According to you, Contemporary Oil Painting, published by Tang's own art center, is a "peer-reviewed journal" and "one of China's leading art journals". Clearly you don't know what "baseless claim" means, you're just salty. I'm not the only person who recognizes that the SOHU article is not independent. Timmyshin (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way that you have counted Google hits is invalid. When displaying results Google first truncates the list to 1,000 entries and then eliminates duplicates among those, so no search for any subject will display more than 1,000 results. For example a search for "Barack Obama" only returns 268 results by your method of counting. This is one of the many reasons why
    counting Google hits is a very bad way of determining notability or otherwise. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So he is a Chinese guy, who was born, made contributions to oil painting and traveled for exhibition. So do many people. This does not make him notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Further references does not satisfy WP:NEXIST.Flawedaddiction (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not valid reasoning. You've completely ignored the evidence presented above that he has received in-depth reporting from multiple Chinese national media outlets, and has been the subject of academic study published in a peer-reviewed journal. -Zanhe (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails
    WP:GNG IMO despite contrary opinions expressed above. Quis separabit? 01:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. I've reviewed the sources given by Zanhe and also performed an internet search myself. I agree with Zanhe that the sources confer sufficient notability. There are reviews from art critics and other contemporary artists, some including substantial biographical content. The fuss about low-quality sources and false positives is irrelevant. Deryck C. 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      Shawn in Montreal: Let me expand a bit on my "irrelevant" comment. It seems to me that many of the proponents of deletion have gone out to search for sources themselves, then went on to criticise the sources they have found as low-quality. That's just attacking a strawman. I have yet to see a convincing argument why the sources provided by Zanhe do not add up to sufficient notability. Deryck C. 00:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements, current information is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are your reasons for dismissing the sources found above as not convincing? Do they not constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If they don't, then please don't keep us in the dark about which arm(s) of "significant coverage", "independent" and "reliable" they fail to meet, and why. Or is this just one more of your very frequent drive-by comments in deletion discussions that make no attempt at taking account of the previous discussion? These are supposed to be discussions, not collections of disconnected comments. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My personal rule of thumb for "multiple" coverage in reliable sources is three, and the strongest refs that Zanhe has linked to do meet that, from what I can see. I'm also persuaded by Deryck Chan's !vote, coming from an editor who is both an administrator here, and fluent in the language.
    talk) 20:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Moving to neutral. Looking at the ongoing discussion, there are wheels within wheels of this thing. Refs aren't what they seem, in some cases. I really don't know. I do think if Deryck Chan feels this challenging of sources is irrelevant, he may want to wade in again.
talk) 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I personally agree that the article from Sina seems to be user submitted. (I have seen this happen in other news portals as well, particularly Yahoo News and Forbes which sometimes reprint press releases/promotional content). In such cases, the source is not considered independent. My biggest red-flag is this supposed exhibition in Singapore which was not reported in any Singaporean media, but was reported in China. Consider that the exhibition claims to have taken place at the Marina Bay Sands (a sufficiently high profile area in Singapore). Taking into account that Singapore is a city state, it is highly unlikely that an important art exhibition would not make it to Singaporean press. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See pictures from the exhibition. I hope you're not implying he's a fraudster who made up all this stuff. -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is NOT an art exhibition. It is a commercial art fair called Art Stage Singapore, where galleries pay to exhibit their works. Tang Huawei's gallery, LYYF Visual Art Centre (owned by him as well), participated in this art fair (one of the 173 galleries participating). This is not a curated exhibition. I'm not implying that the article subject is a fraud. Just that he is not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the original author(s) are likely connected to the artist, but the article has been scrubbed of its promotional content, and I've deleted all copyrighted paintings uploaded by them. Now, Sina Collection runs an entire special section about him, and I don't need to "fool" people who cannot read Chinese, several articles on the site are available in English: one by
    WP:significant coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Why does the website of Liu Yiqian say "Copyright © 1996-2015 SINA Corporation"? Every link I am seeing is somehow linked to SINA. I would be glad if someone can show me coverage in mainstream Chinese media, Xinhua for instance. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG requires reliable sources to be independent of the subject. Again, the Sohu link reads like a press release (about participation in an "art fair" in Singapore (a dealer show) NOT an art exhibition). A press release is clearly not an independent source. I checked out the links at
    WP:ARTIST --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The Douban link is also written by him. The Liu Yiqian link is just copied-pasted from the sina promotional piece. As for the 2 bilingual articles written by university faculties that are published in the same SINA SPECIAL SECTION, let's examine them in details. Since they both contained English translations (why if not for promotional purposes?) I can simply highlight excerpts for all to see: From this one by Yang Xiaoyan: "In practice, he found that there are some natural and delightful relationship between body movement and hand movement, and painting is an extremely occasional process to comprehensively allocate the strength of all body parts. This discovery pleasantly surprised him, since he understands that painting is generated in this way..." From this one by Xia Kejun: "Chinese artist Tang Huawei has been “lonely and tenacious” for years, to awaken the soul of nature with his unique artistic language.... Having received strict realistic training and seriously contemplated on art history, he returned his artistic creation to zero, a complete “resetting,” in order to re-select his artistic path, re-establish his unique cognition and language system." Independent art reviews or paid promotional piece (probably even written by Tang himself and simply signed by the professors, just like 90% of Chinese students applying for graduate school in the West)? You be the judge. Timmyshin (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. If you want it to be closed as a no consensus keep, which is what it would be, I think. It's only been delsorted in the China discussion for two days. What's the hurry?
    talk) 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well the latter two are not going to be happy: they've been blocked, for some time now.
    talk) 22:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I would be happy if you could point out some of these secondary sources. Please note that these should be reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and should not be promotional stuff like we have seen above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A graphic review by Sylvie Samani: [57]. Also, Tang's exhibition in
Milan Expo 2015 [58] should satisfy this requirement - "The person's work (or works) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". STSC (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
More sources: [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], etc. STSC (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these sources are either
WP:SPS, affiliated to the subject or reprints of press releases. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't agree; you'll have to prove that they are not reliable secondary sources. STSC (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source about the Milan Expo is from a gallery owned by the subject. Even if I just assume it is true, it doesn't seem like his work was a substantial part of the exhibition. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is being a "substantial part" is debatable; Tang didn't just have a single picture displayed, he actually had a personal gallery in that exhibition, I think that is quite a substantial part. STSC (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first and main problem is that the source [65] is the website of a gallery owned by Tang Huawei. Any claims need to be properly verified. The second point, the source mentions small solo exhibition for Tang Huawei. The third point is this sentence held jointly by the ... LYYF visual arts center ... which suggests that his arts centre was involved. None of these help to satisfy
WP:ARTIST. I would like to see independent and reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you suggesting it might be a fake event? Of course his arts centre was involved to exhibit his work. We are evaluating whether his work was a substantial part in the event. STSC (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first and foremost requirement in
WP:N is reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this condition is not met by the source, I wouldn't even proceed to examine the claims. The source you gave is a website of the art gallery owned by him. If this exhibition is notable and he played a significant part, please try finding a source in the Chinese government owned media. Surely, the government must have reported this event and about Tang Huawei's participation if it is, as it claims, representing the country's pavilion and is an important exhibition. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The primary source is only used here to inform you one thing: he had an exhibition in Expo. That is a fact, not a claim. I'm saying his exhibition in Expo would satisfy
WP:ARTIST. STSC (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not a "fact". For it to be a "fact" it needs to be verified by other reliable sources independent of the subject. Till that time, it is simply a "claim". Tang Huawei saying that "his work was a significant part of a notable exhibition" is simply a claim, unless other independent sources verify it and report it. Till that time, the question of his satisfying
WP:ARTIST based on this claim). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We can evaluate whether "significant" and "substantial" apply to his exhibition [66] but to dispute whether the exhibition has taken place is rather extreme. STSC (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm simply saying that when evaluating notability, we only look at reliable secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Any other sources are meaningless. And also this source is just a listing of an exhibition and seems to have been written by the curator himself. We need an independent source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your rationale, though I think your threshold for "independent" is unnecessarily high. I think most of the news articles given by Zanhe and STSC are good enough to be "independent reliable". Deryck C. 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this discussion defaults to keep.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wedlease

Wedlease (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 concept of this 'Wedlease' has only been referred to in a single book. This book was then written about in the Washington Post and followed up by an article in NPR based on the Post article. I disagree with the

WP:Golden Rule
applies to the article as it has not received significant coverage in the media. It has not been discussed by sources independent of the author, and this is because it was merely fabricated for the author's book. Additional questions can be drawn in regards to the article's original author who created an account only to create the article in 2013 (days after the editorial the author of the editorial wrote in the Washington Post was released) and then never to make another contribution to Wikipedia again. This article detailing a concept that has only been remarked upon in a single book does not pass
WP:Golden Rule. Its continued existence is without reason and therefore it should be deleted. Cawhee (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Which, it should be noted, would constitute a serious conflict of interest.--Cawhee (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But, this is not a valid reason to delete. Any COI that has soiled such a short article can be dealt with by editing this article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I'm simply finding nothing else convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that it was first introduced by WP doesn't make it notable. There are also no sources to ascertain notability of this one. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, it is a neologism but it has been picked up by numerous reliable secondary sources and so clearly meets notability requirements. I have added new references to the article - check 'em out! COI issues can be addressed by improvements to the article. Deletion is not necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term has been referred to in a limited number of articles, but all reference Paul Rampell. Rampell appears to be the only person to have ever used the term to classify a marriage. Additionally, I really don't know whether adding additional references to a single sentence qualifies as improving the article. The article is presently two sentences which have 7 citations. This seems a bit like
WP:OVERSITE as none of the references you have added add anything new to the article. Furthermore, I don't know if it's even fair to refer to the term as a neologism as for it to be considered a neologism, it would still require use from people not Rampell. I continue to affirm that this article should be deleted.--Cawhee (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We consider things
generally notable
here if they are covered in multiple sources. Coverage in a "limited number of sources" is adequate for establishing notability as long as the number is two or greater, the coverage is significant and the sources are considered reliable.
I don't understand the argument you seem to be making that the subject is not notable because it comes from one man. Ideas and the words they're associated with have to come from somewhere. With respect to notability as
Wikipedia defines it
, it is not the origin that is important it is whether others pick up and disseminate the ideas/words. Clearly they have in this case.
As to your comments about article and improvement quality, I hear you but those issues are not relevant to the notability discussion which I interpret to be your
reason for requesting deletion here. If I have misinterpreted, please let me know. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
As an editor of Wikipedia, I like to think that I know what "we consider notable," and I continue to insist that the topic at hand does not meet this criteria. All of the sources cited in the article only make reference to Paul Rampell's, creator of the term as well as
WP:Identifying reliable sources
.
On the topic of a lack of notability in reference to the fact it has only been proposed by one man, I point to what I've already said above as well as my previous remarks on a
WP:TOOSOON
. Perhaps one day, though I doubt it, the term "wedlease" could be neologism, but it is not today. No one knows the term because it was fabricated by a man of no notability for the purpose of making money.
I think if you still feel my request for deletion relies solely on the premise that this is over
WP:WINAD. The article is only a definition of what the term is. Why? Because there is no room to expand and frankly there never will be unless someone decides to take an estate lawyer in Florida's opinions on marriage seriously. --Cawhee (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
We're going to have to agree to disagree about
WP:N
.
The article may not be more than a definition right now but it is about a made-up concept as well as a made-up word. There are ample sources to expand so that it is more than a definition.
Any COI that has soiled such a short article can be dealt with by editing this article. There's no reason to
blow it up and start over. I know you'd like to blow it up and not start over but that only happens if we get consensus here that it is not a notable subject. ~Kvng (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I just saw your comment. What do you mean by 'as a term in use?' This term is in fact not in use and this is why it's up for debate. No one uses the term 'Wedlease.' CawheeTalk 01:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cawhee (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent delete. While Kvng has done a commendable job of finding sources, the coverage is not, in my view, sufficient to establish notability of the concept or common usage of the term. Most telling is that, with the exception of the 2015 Toronto Star article, our other references are just news buzz from August 2013.  Rebbing  02:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rebbing: How do you distinguish "news buzz" from significant coverage in reliable sources? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I'm mostly looking at the temporal proximity and depth of coverage. And, to me, this looks like someone wrote a surprising editorial that coined a new term, and a handful of news outlets and commentators tossed it around for a couple weeks without contributing much more than their surprise. I would say that the cited coverage, while reliable, isn't "significant." Even if the coverage is significant, the paucity of coverage since 2013 weighs against notability; and the fact that there can be little hope of expanding this article beyond a mere definition suggests that, even if notable, the topic isn't suitable for inclusion (see the point about "presumed" in
GNG).  Rebbing  14:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not seen criteria like this applied outside
WP:NEVENT. ~Kvng (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You're right that the "enduring significance" test is from NEVENT, not GNG. However, I'm not relying on NEVENT's criteria here, which would be inappropriate; instead, I'm borrowing the test to flesh out GNG's criteria.
GNG is not explicit. The guideline defines "significant coverage" but that definition isn't—and couldn't be—precise enough to render significant coverage a mere mechanical calculation; it's a judgment call. The guideline is also only a test of presumed notability: other (unenumerated) factors may override that presumption. See, e.g.,
GNG
n.5 ("Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example . . . minor news stories . . . may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."). In evaluating both whether coverage is significant and whether GNG's presumption of notability is appropriate, enduring significance is a factor I have chosen to take into consideration—along with depth, quantity, and reliability.
Therefore, as to this subject, my judgment is that the subject fails GNG because its coverage—in its depth, quantity, reliability, and temporal proximity—is not "significant coverage" as that term is defined in GNG. In the alternative, assuming the coverage is significant, the subject still fails GNG as notability is rebutted, as described in GNG, by the relatively small amount of coverage combined with its extremely narrow temporal span.  Rebbing  19:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CawheeTalk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CawheeTalk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CawheeTalk 14:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep we have an equivalent article for this phenomenon occuring in central Asia;
    Misyar. Why not have its equivalent in the western world, especially seeing as there are no other article with which it can be merged? Furthermore the fact that its practised in at least 4 continents shows that the concept is definitely notable and the concept itself is unquestionably encyclopedic. Please do not delete. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The issue I see with this argument is that in the two cases you've given, they are widely documented. This concept of the 'wedlease' is not widely documented. Instead, it is a word which has been used in a very closed context—as has been mentioned by Rebbing. The very fact that there is nothing this article can be merged into—and the fact it remains an orphan to this day—only speak volumes to the fact that this article is not widely documented and not worthy of an article. CawheeTalk 18:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thats where you're wrong. It is reasonably documented except it is described as an SOP (sum of parts) rather than with a distinct noun; in this case wedlease. Hawaan12 (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your argument, why keep the article around if the concept has already been documented elsewhere more broadly? This obscure term that was created for the sole purpose of selling author of the article's book. If what you are saying is true, that the concept has been adequately addressed in other articles that already exist, then this article continues to fail in having a purpose. CawheeTalk 00:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an analogy, imgaine no word existed for the word "school", and instead people mostly said "Place where preteens study". "School" has started coming into use but is still a neologism. In that scenario I would prefer to use the neologism over the more attested place where preteens study. In some areas the English language is poor. Only a dictionary-conformist to the extreme would choose otherwise IMHO. Hawaan12 (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is truly how you feel about the article in question, it sounds as though you are calling for the creation of a redirect. The term in question, wedlease, is simply not a neologism. For it to be such would require much wider use and a
Misyar does not exist. The two of those a deep-seated traditions in the cultures in question. A "wedlease" is not. CawheeTalk 18:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Just a fan fact, the small, insignificant page in question, Wedlease, has a size of 2,890 bytes! In comparison, this discussion is 16,547 bytes. It really goes to show how little can truly be expanded upon the single definition Wikipedia caries of a word that doesn't exist outside the context of a man's book. CawheeTalk 04:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Marriage#Temporary_marriages where one sentence will suffice. This is not a distinct topic, as has been pointed out it's just another term for temporary marriage. There is so little to say about this term that, given a viable merge target, keeping it as a standalone article would be a nonsense. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. CawheeTalk 13:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support the above merger. Some of the sources are noting this concept has come up before in history, so it seems to be a concept that should be part of the Marriage article, but not enough material exists to support a standalone article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while there are 'references', I find the 'references' to be trivial blog-type references, and it fails to make a convincing case that it actually is notable; there's no lawmakers trying to push it through anywhere for example, it seems to be a purely theoretical thing. There's also no books, there's no academic journals, and the article completely lacks content. I therefore consider it fails
    WP:GNG.GliderMaven (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to' Marriage#Temporary_marriages. No need to keep a stub on this. If this is going to become a more popular term, and the section grows, it can be restored. Also, if this is based on a book, an article about a book might be considered. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can go along with a merge. Right now, although technically passing
    it has been covered significantly in several sources, it would be better treated in context. Keep the redirect because some student will no doubt be searching for the term. Bearian (talk) 12:12, 11 May 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. Nakon 22:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkolan Tiikerit

Kokkolan Tiikerit (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)

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, fails

WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of sources exist in Finnish. It's typical news journalism in coverage, so takes some piecing together to properly source everything in the article. I'm not up for the task, but I can assure you, there are sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve perhaps as I had waited for others to comment before finally coming. This is will better familiar attention if it need be improved. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 8 May 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. MBisanz talk 01:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bass

Chuck Bass (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 fictional has no

talk) 18:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the fact that fictional characters can be noteworthy. As a central character for the entire series I personally believe that a stand alone article is relevant. Your reasoning would apply to all fictional characters that have a stand alone article. You gave the same reasons for another stand alone character article in the same series here and the result was keep. Brocicle (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-admin closure of Serena vdW was closed by a non-admin user for unclear reasons, I have asked that user for clarification and received no response. Consensus cannot override the GNG and it was never demonstrated how Serena vdW article lives up to the
    talk) 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Because I assume that the best available sources have already been added to the article. Why would this article need more sources? It already has many sources and as they are, they don't
    talk) 19:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom's comments immediately preceding demonstrate not only failure to comply with
    WP:BEFORE but also an approach that is incompatible with basic policy of our deletion policy and guidelines. Assuming that "the best available sources have already been added to the article" is contrary to empirical experience and shows a failure to evaluate the subject individually. A cursory GScholar search turns up numerous references in academic coverage of popular culture. "Playing dress-up: digital fashion and gamic extensions of televisual experience in Gossip Girl's Second Life", "Gossip Girls in a transmedia world: The sexual and technological anxieties of integral reality", or "Drama is the cure for gossip: Television's turn to theatricality in a time of media transition" may not be your idea of rewarding reading (nor mine!), but dismissing a sizable body of academic criticism without examining it is not a legitimate approach to notability analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:02, 1 May 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janez Pristavec

AfDs for this article:
Janez Pristavec (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)

Unclear notability; I can't find any reliable source discussing his notability in detail. The article has already been deleted once.

my talk 12:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Hi @
    Eleassar: I believe this artist is notable due to his having a 1998 book written about his life and works by the Republic of Slovenia's Maribor Art Gallery (one of the main museums for modern and contemporary art in Slovenia)[1] as documented by the Library of Congress.[2] What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ugm.si/en/
  2. ^ https://lccn.loc.gov/2001379983
Comment: I think this is good enough. I'd still rather see that this discussion proceeds in a regular manner so that we get a clear consensus. --
my talk 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @
Eleassar:I agree with more discussion as his WP page in Slovenia[1] is so bare (but has pretty paintings of his) and would really like for someone in the art world to let us know more about him. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I've added these references to the lead of this article. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the arguments below, I think this painter is not notable enough to have his biography here. As stated, "One exhibition catalog does not prove notability." --
my talk 07:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ https://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janez_Pristavec
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing of the article is misleading. whose works were … archived in the United States by the Library of Congress merely means that the LOC holds a copy of an exhibition catalogue. That doesn't confer notability. Looking a bit closer at the ref for Maribor Art Gallery which points to the main page of the Maribor Art Gallery website, I can only find one mention of Pristavc, which shows that he participated in a group show. In the list of exhibitions, I don't see any notable galleries or museums. Fails
    talk • contribs
    )
  • Comment Hi @
    WP:ARTIST citation that says must have been the subject of an independent book. Please notice that this doesn't say book's plural, just book singular--meaning that for an artist to have notability they only have to have a single publication about them, which this artist most definitely does. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
talk) 20:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @Mduvekot: Thank you so much your very illuminating, and concise, explanation of WP policy as it pertains to this articles subject. With that being said, I must concur with you that further sources should be found to support this article subjects notability. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to vote Keep here as it seems convincing enough. Inviting DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One exhibition catalog does not prove notability. Such publications are not normally significant critical works. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 11:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic social network

Semantic social network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a commonly used term, this article was created by its originator, and references are mostly papers written by promoters of the concept, and a couple web links of semantic web-promoting websites with questionable reliability for establishing notability. Thus, it fails to meet the general notability guideline. --Michael WhiteT·C 04:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, and I probably should have checked that more. Some of the matches are not quite germane. GS search for "semantic social network" -author:neumann -"semantic social network modeling" -"semantic social network analysis" -"social semantic network" returns 595 results but a lot of them are in citations or passing uses of the phrase. "Semantic social network" is a term that has probably been used a fair amount by semantic web researchers but no notable semantic social networks exist and the term does not seem to have been significantly used in any reliable sources independent of semantic web researchers.--Michael WhiteT·C 05:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an emerging discipline, fairly well documented, nomination does not meet
    WP:DEL-REASON009o9 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:18, 1 May 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. Nakon 01:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Telecoms Limited

United Telecoms Limited (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:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND AM (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:15, 1 May 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 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Austin (poet)

Mike Austin (poet) (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 person.

talk) 04:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I hate to lose this since there undoubtedly are not many Cherokee poets who write in German listed in Wikipedia, but the only things I could find were two references in German books that don't seem to say much about him: here and here. The latter is a poem of his, so it's not a primary reference. We'd need access to more German sources, I believe. LaMona (talk) 23:49, 7 May 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 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Kant Jaisansaria

Chandra Kant Jaisansaria (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 author. Has published two books, one of them on the Notion Press "self-publishing company". Three of four refs in article are for the same interview that is not a

WP:AUTHOR. Article creator started with "book was self-published" but then said it wasn't in subsequent edit. Click here for the author listing at Notion press, and on "packages" to see how much it costs to publish your own book there. I'm starting to think "Notion Press" should be added to an edit filter somewhere. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One book is self-published, the other is a collection of stories that he solicited from others. None of the references are reviews (they are all interviews; one may be a "self-interview" based on the tone of the web site). I didn't find anything else, but I assume that references will only be found in Indian sources. If someone has access to those and finds good sources, I can reconsider. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 7 May 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. I am afraid roughly half of the users think the coverage is sufficient to merit a standing alone article, and another half think it is insufficient. This is no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Tower

AfDs for this article:
Houston Tower (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 my first AFD attempt, so I hope I follow the correct protocols. I nominate this article for deletion as the building is imaginary and it reads like an advertisement. It was never built, or even approved to be built. The article starts with "The Houston Tower was a visionary skyscraper to be built in Houston" which is not encyclopedic at all. It has 2 more sentences. Mattximus (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- This page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. Followed up with the nominator on his talk page. --Finngall talk 20:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - maybe if they ever build it it may be notable Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep Leaning delete – There's five paragraphs about the concept in this The New York Times article (see the "Structural Limits" section), and it has an Emporis entry, but not finding much additional coverage at this time. North America1000 13:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modified my !vote above to "leaning keep", per additional sources added to the article. North America1000 04:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, I am digging into this to see what can be done with it. The existing article was not in great shape and really misportrays the story. Also, I am not sure it was ever called the "Houston Tower." Even if we find it not individually notable, the concept may merit coverage somewhere like Skyscraper design and construction, because it appears the project was meant to illustrate whether there are limits to the possible heights of skyscraper design.[71]--Milowent • hasspoken 23:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent, any update? czar 15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think doncram makes some good points. I would suggest a move to Proposed 500-story Houston skyscraper at this point. Its amazing they didn't seem to give a name for the amount of coverage it received in the 1980s.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest "Mile-high skyscraper designs]] below. Frank Lloyd Wright proposed his for Chicago, to be named "The Illinois". --doncram 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although probably rename. I remember it as an important "futurist"-type contribution that changed what people thought was possible, that truly huge increases in building height were possible. The world was nowhere near any limit. It would be like proving, or establishing the general understanding, that computers more powerful than anything in the world as of 1950 or so, would eventually fit into a wristwatch...which I don't think was established until much much later. One source to use is the scanned Houston newspaper article included in this forum.skyscraperpage.com discussion, which was pointed out in the first AFD and which still works. It would be good to find learned discussion about the impact of the contribution, but even if we don't find that, it really did happen and was important. I also do not recall it being termed "Houston Tower". Probably it should be moved/renamed to some descriptive title like "So-and-so's 500 story skyscraper proposal of 19xx", which would not be controversial, and any suggestion it was ever referred to as Houston Tower could be included there if/when sources support that. --doncram 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The name doesn't have to be settled in this AFD, but how about
Taliesin Spring Green
, finishing the drawing of the Mile high Building. Three drawings were prepared for the news conference held on October 16, 1956, in conjunction with "Sixty Years of Living Architecture," exhibited in Chicago from October 16, 17 and 18, 1956 at the Hotel Sherman. On October 16, Wright held a Press conference at the Hotel Sherman to open the exhibition and unveil the Mile High Building "The Illinois" for the first time. Wright proposed the building for Chicago

By the way, the New York Times article includes quote from Sobel about how the elevators would need to be able to jump hoistways, and goes on with info from another source about elevators. That is part of the futurist vision. It's like science fiction, which prepares us for what's coming. --doncram 04:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perhaps, because although it was never actually started, it may be enough to keep at least for informative uses. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So whenever I prepare myself to close this as "keep", I look back at the sourcing and don't see the rationale. I see a NYT article and a bunch of local coverage—why is this independently notable? czar 07:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Mechanics is not local. I added that cite. We don't have the 1986 Futurist Magazine article (I don't think) but it is claimed toe exist as well. You could close keep or no consensus at this point.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So both the Popular Mechanics and the NYT articles are really about the "history of the skyscraper" idea and only mention this Houston project briefly. It would seem to me that the solution is to be proportional—we cover the tower proportional to its coverage in the reliable sources, which is to say we mention it in the context of the history of skyscrapers. This said, I see nothing to merge outright but would recommend either to redirect to Skyscraper (or a history of the skyscraper section that can mention the tower) or outright deletion, as there isn't a sign that this tower project was independently notable from that history. I have the Futurist magazine (ISSN 0016-3317) at a local library so I'll take a peek early next week, but we don't presume that a magazine covers the topic in depth just because it's in the references section. If it's anything like these other sources, the Houston tower will only be a brief portion of the article. Pinging prior discussants @Mattximus, Northamerica1000, Milowent, Doncram, and SwisterTwister for reconsideration czar 14:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree that the sourcing is quite weak for it to be independently notable. I wonder how many "visionary towers" were proposed in the past hundred years. Should they all get a page? I do hold a strong stance against pages on "potential" skyscrapers preferring wikipedia report on real ones only (architect's notebooks are filled with potential skyscrapers). I also will not argue against the discussion above, as I see many of the points as being valid as well. I do maintain a delete view. Mattximus (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Czar. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked up The Futurist—it's a four-page article that only gives the tower a passing mention. I've uploaded it here if you want to take a look. The source is more about skyscrapers, which means, along with the others mentioned above, we're much better off mentioning the Houston Tower in the history of skyscrapers than in its own article. czar 19:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To illustrate at what stage this was, the cited NYT says "It's what happens when two people sit around and don't have enough to do." The tower was according to the article was "never intended to be built". This is an article about a conceptual research project, not about a building project. If this research were regularly cited and applied the interest may be enduring enough to make it notable, but here the coverage consists of some old news articles, and even there the coverage is limited. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, modifying my thoughts above, and since no one else responded to my source analysis, there is currently nothing to merge and no mention of the towers as a worthy redirect target. Redirection was a compromise before, but might as well outright delete. czar 15:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The tower concept, by itself, was only somewhat notable, and even that is due to its influence on the mechanics of skyscraper design. I feel like all of this information would make a lot more sense if displayed in a paragraph or such in some other article. Skyscraper design and construction, probably? As it stands, I would just delete this. I also have to say that, if this is retained, the title badly needs to change since it falsely implies that the tower was intended to be actually built. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, with no more detail than that they had an idea. Most notably covered within the history of skyscrapers, according to the context of these passages. The Newsweek "title" is misleading—it's a subheading within another article. The local paper seems to have the most to say about it... czar 05:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The five-paragraph coverage in nonlocal source The New York Times article has the most to say about it. The local Houston Post comes at a close second. I chose the Newsweek subheading to be the citation template's title because I do not know what the article's title is. Cunard (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Five-paragraph" makes it sound a lot more grand than its reality (these are newspaper "paragraphs"). There are plenty of other buildings evoked in that article, but its topic is skyscraper concepts, not the Houston Tower—the Houston Post article is much longer. This said, my point is that there's little depth or sustained coverage, that the idea is considered by history alongside other skyscraper concepts rather than an independently notable concept. czar 05:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine for the subject to be covered in articles about skyscraper topics. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

The guideline further says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I think The New York Times article, the Houston Post article, and the 101 of the World's Tallest Buildings book "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail".

Cunard (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Houston Post is local, not national, coverage. I hear you, but this is also about drawing the line. Coverage is presumed notability, and I was only addressing my counter-case to explain why I maintain that these sources are insufficient for notability, though you could certainly put a paragraph about it somewhere. czar 06:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think significant coverage in a national source (The New York Times) and a book (101 of the World's Tallest Buildings) makes this not merely local coverage about the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 16 May 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 Tau Ceti. MBisanz talk 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Ceti f

Tau Ceti f (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)

Unconfirmed planet. Per

WP:NASTRO, we should wait until confirmation or until multiple non-trivial independent sources confer notability on this object before having an article on it. jps (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • MergeRedirect to host star. Seriously @
     Talk  21:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 May 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 Tau Ceti. MBisanz talk 00:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Ceti e

Tau Ceti e (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)

Unconfirmed planet. Per

WP:NASTRO, we should wait until confirmation or until multiple non-trivial independent sources confer notability on this object before having an article on it. jps (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:PRESERVE. The topic is covered in some sources (e.g. [72]), but may not have enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article at this time. North America1000 09:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 8 May 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. Nakon 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tora (band)

AfDs for this article:
Tora (band) (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

reliable. As David Gerard
said, "sheer weight of bad sources doesn't establish noteworthiness". This is another overly promotional piece (from the same SPA) for an up and coming band that's not yet notable.
Band lacks charting, sales, awards, rotation. Releases not on major or "important" label. Touring lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not literally the same article that was deleted, but it isn't any better - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed opinion to Keep after Shaidar comes through yet again - David Gerard (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Seems promotional in nature, also, don't predict the next big thing. . This band has not done anything noteworthy yet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as my searches are simply finding nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been converted since the last AfD. Although there is a mountain of poor sources in the article, there are some which are reliable. Other RS, not yet in the article, include Triple J playlist, vimeo of European tour, and 10+ reviews at the AU review (one of these is in the article). All the RS (both in and out of the article) means the group meets notability criteria at
    WP:BAND#4, 11 and 12. Although it is poorly worded and supported the article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • hmm. Your opinion on this sort of thing is very good IME. Add those sources and I may change my !vote - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • A single play is not rotation, there is no sign of #11 being satisfied. A random individual video on Vimeo is not a reliable source. Reading the blurb and watching it, it is from someone connected to the band, not independent. AU Review does not appear to be a reliable source, [73]. Most there do not go past trivial coverage of Tora. The interviews are them talking about themselves, not independent. The sourcing verifies the touring but does not give any significant coverage of it. So #4 is not met. As for #12, where does that claim come from. No sign of that anywhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments: I dispute your interpretations:
          1. More Triple J playlists are available here: 1, 2 and 3. When added to their winning a section of the Unearthed competition this means the claim of high rotation is sustained.
          2. Hardly a random individual. The video is a teaser for the fuller documentary and shows that the band did undertake an international tour of Europe.
          3. Why do you believe AU Review is not reliable? Some of the AU reviews are rather brief but others provide substantial coverage of the subject including interviews and reviews of their touring or releases.
          4. They were the subject of a radio broadcast, interview and on-air performance on ABC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Looks a lot more impressive there but it's still not rotation. Better than I first saw but it's still discrete plays, not on their playlist. Not all unearthed competitions give their winners rotation. The likes of Unearthed High do but the sort Tora won, for individual supports fro concerts of festivals, do not. Rotation has not been sustained.
2. Random individual. Not staff. Not known reporter. Just someone who uploaded some videos. It verifies Tora toured but does not provide any independent coverage.
3. Amongst others. "Provide bands and promoters with a publication that will support them editorially at no cost". No sign of editorial oversight. No sign of established staff. "Provide up-and-coming writers and photographers with a unique online source, helping them establish a name and an identity that goes beyond the usual constraints of the internet. It’s THEIR content, not ours."
4. "a substantial broadcast segment". Like a half hour independent documentary about them. Not a run of the mill promo appearance on a radio broadcast where they talk about themselves and play a song or two. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Once again, I dispute your interpretations:
  1. Each of the Triple J articles are titled something like "Program Playlists" or "Playlists ". Alessio and Kingsmill believe they've added Tora to their Triple J playlists; so do I.
  2. At least you concede that Tora toured internationally.
  3. No sign of established staff? No editorial oversight? Clearly you didn't delve further: consider this. Amongst others. "Founding editor Larry Heath" (also the author or co-author of some of the items cited), "Editor-in-Chief Sosefina Fuamoli" and "Contributing Editors (Music):" (which includes Jana Angeles, a co-author).
  4. YMMV. I see this as an independent documentary about the band.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's still not rotation. Saying it is as the article now does is simply a lie.
2. Of course I do, they just lack the coverage about it.
3. How'd I miss that, I'll check the articles again.
4. Nope, just promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following the substantive work by Shaidar cuebiyar, there appears to be sufficient grounds to satisfy
    WP:NMUSIC (in particular criteria 4 - where there has been coverage of their tour of Canada, appearance at Canadian Music Week and tour of Europe). Dan arndt (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't find any solid reason to say delete. Some copyediting can make it look better.--Musa Talk  21:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has plenty of sources, and a quick search revealed even more than already listed. Although they might not all be reliable, there's clearly enough coverage to pass GNG. Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:48, 10 May 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 13 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI

AfDs for this article:
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:NASTRO. Therefore, the list has no inherited notability. There are zero independent sources which identify these Kepler candidates as being notable as a group or as a list. Only a single website. jps (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Using this index, they found that Earth's H′ is only .82, meaning that from the vantage point of another galaxy, Earth would only appear to be 82% likely to be habitable. This is interesting in itself, but more significantly, there are many exoplanets already discovered that have similar habitability indexes, including Kepler 442-b (.84) and KOI 6108.01 (.87), and are worth a closer look for alien life. Funnily enough, there are several planets that have significantly higher habitability rankings than Earth, including KOI 5737.01 (.92), KOI 7235.01 (.93), and KOI 3456.02 (.96).
Website #2
One of the unconfirmed planets could end up a real doozy. Located somewhere between 200 to 1,000 light years away, the Sun-like star KOI-7235.01 may have a planet even more similar to Earth in orbital distance and size, at only 20 percent larger than our planet. If confirmed, it would be even more Earth-like than Kepler 452b.
      • Are you sure of no mention of KOI's on those sites?
         Talk  21:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Not as a catalog list, no. jps (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:LISTN supports notability when the entries have been "discussed as a group", not merely "listed as a group". There is no notability criteria requiring a preexisting list for editors to copy. LISTN also can be sufficient to establish notability, but as it explains it is not necessary. As a side note, perhaps you misspoke, but your initial comment was that the sources did not "mention" KOIs, which is obviously incorrect; when this was pointed out to you, you moved the goalposts without acknowledging it. Let's try to be candid in discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Comment The paint hasn't even dried from the last AfD. Valoem talk contrib 02:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last AfD was closed "no consensus" and then it was moved to this page. In the meantime all the list items were removed from Wikipedia. What we have here is a list of things that aren't notable and no claim of notability for the list as a whole. This is a different AfD. Consider the arguments and decide. jps (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MelanieN the discussion is going forward for new outcome now, please unprotect the page so any issues mentioned during AfD can be addressed. Valoem talk contrib 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I have removed the protection since it appears (from discussion elsewhere) that the issue of removing the AfD tag has been resolved. Users are now free to edit and improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Alternative options to this article other than deletion. #1) An alternative option to deletion that I am more comfortable with is changing the article name to
     Talk  02:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A third idea that I came up with is possible adding another column and listing the "HITE"[74] index for these objects as well. It appears to be an alternative to the
 Talk  21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/RfC I think the underlying issue, of this and several other pages under regular AfD recently, is whether or not use of unique data contained at Planetary Habitability Laboratory adheres to or violates
    dgaf)  17:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is very true! We shouldn't have AfD's regarding ESI topics until we can get some sort of consensus about it first.
 Talk  21:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That would probably be more productive than a new AFD less than two weeks after a no consensus close on the previous one (the second such no consensus AFD on this list under whatever title). postdlf (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, ESI rating and PHL/HEC appear to pass WP:NASTRO, the list whether listed as catalog or not has been peer reviewed. Whether the measure is correct or incorrect is irrelevant to notability. Valoem talk contrib 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE fails
    WP:LISTN
    .
    • WP:NASTRO
      : The guideline covers all significant physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space.
    • WP:NASTRO
      : Important note 3: Hypothesized or candidate astronomical objects may be notable if they have been subject to multiple, independent reliable sources that attest to their notability. Owing to WP:CBALL, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote a hypothesized or candidate object as actually existing before confirmation by reliable sources. As with criterion 2 above, the mere fact that an astronomical object has been hypothesized to exist or has been included in comprehensive source catalogs of candidate objects is not enough to confer notability.
    • WP:LISTN
      This selective subset-list of Kepler Candidates is non-notable. There are multiple conflicting ESI formulas, and this list is defined by a single arbitrary source using a an ESI-formula of a single non-peer-reviewed source filling in those fictional mass values to compute idiosyncratic ESI values. It is utterly encyclopedic, and completely non-notable in independent sources.
We already have
List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. The only way this list could hypothetically be kept is by renaming it to something like List of unconfirmed exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft, dumping the fictional mass values, dumping the arbitrary and fictional ESI-values, and expanding the list to include all 3699[75] unconfirmed Kepler candidates rather than this arbitrary and non-notable subset. It would be a poor idea to make that list of 3699 entries because unconfirmed entries have very low encyclopedic value, because 3699 entries will be way over recommended page size, because it's merely mirror catalog of basic physical statistics, and because every entry will be removed from the list "soonish" as they are either established not to exist at all, or are confirmed and moved to the other list. It's like a slower version of a "List of potential 0-0 Soccer matches" - listing games that are in-progress. Alsee (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
It should be noted that the nominator added Important note 3 to
dgaf)  15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article List of potentially habitable exoplanets previously contained much of this information, such as Earth Similarity Index, but has been edited and is no longer such a good guide as it was to which exoplanets are really potentially habitable. For a listing of exoplanets' Earth Similarity Index you now have to come here and that's why I wish it to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyzex (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a good guide...to which exoplanets are really potentially habitable" this is like an article
Biały 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Personally I think ESI does not measure habitability in anyway and mostly likely will not be the used measurement in the future, but that does not mean it is not notable. Things can be notably incorrect and I hope you understand that. Valoem talk contrib 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the keep rationale wasn't that. It was keep on basically the exact reason that these articles are so problematic: they have become de facto proxies for "habitability". An index being "notably wrong" seems like a poor reason to have a list article organizing the topic, and I would need a good deal of convincing otherwise if it were suggested that this was the norm (under whatever alphabet policy soup fits the bill). Obviously, conventional articles about topics are a different matter, where it's clearer how to write material in a more manifestly NPOV-compliant manner.
Biały 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well technically its not notable for being wrong yet, but it is notable based on the these sources Website #1 and Website #2 the sources do list ESI ranked planets. ESI measures Io higher on habitability than all other moons in the solar system which contradicts all other measurements, so I think it is wrong, but I also think it is notable because notability and factuality are not related. Valoem talk contrib 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather hard to construct a list in an NPOV-compliant fashion, though. How do you
Biały 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't we just write that this is not an accepted measure of habitability and cite oher measurements which contradict? Valoem talk contrib 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
On what policy basis do you want Wikipedia to host a list of ESI values? jps (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
 Talk  03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I've been cleaning your mess in that article regarding habitability.
talk) 03:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, just remember that this article used to be called
 Talk  20:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If habitability is not the motivation for the list, then what is the motivation? jps (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
 Talk  20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
You're voting to keep. If you cannot justify the raison d'etre of the list, you shouldn't have argued for it to be kept. jps (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep because you were arguing that the list is not notable. The entries were kept from the after the renaming of the article which now appears that you are exploiting this to completely delete and hide the edit history of articles mentioning or using the ESI completely. I understand that you may not feel that the use of the ESI is not acceptable but trying to cover up edit histories of articles that used it by deleting them doesn't sound right to me. However, yes I do feel that this list is notable, but I think it needs restructuring like what happened at
 Talk  04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not an explanation. The list is by design a list of ESIs and nothing more by your own admission. You !vote to "keep" is based on some silly vendetta and not on policy which is what this discussion is supposed to hinge upon. jps (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your nomination you were questioning the articles notability and that appears to be why you nominated it for deletion. In my !vote I was pointing out sources that disprove that and I was arguing that it does meet the criteria of being notable and therefore it should be kept. This is not about vendettas jps I don't even know how you made that connection here.
 Talk  04:59, 8 May 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this discussion defaults to keep.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Crazy Eyes Crew

Crazy Eyes Crew (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)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable dance group. Speedy

WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. This source confirms that this group has won several dance awards, including national ones. Other sources can be found by simply clicking on the word "news" in the searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since they appear to be notable within their own country, based on the national competitions they have won. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The news articles listed are nothing more then mentions that this dance group has won some non-notable dance competitions. There is nothing which speaks about this group in depth or to state they meet any of the inclusion criteria or at the very least garnered any international recognition. Please remember to be clear on which criteria you think that this group satisfies for inclusion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "non-notable dance competitions" I suppose you mean dance competitions that anglophone editors haven't heard of, which isn't something that appears anywhere in our guidelines. This group won national competitions and received national press coverage for doing so. And there is no requirement for international recognition, but in this case some of the sources found by the Google News search are Turkish, so they have garnered some international recognition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By non notable I mean they have not been proven to be notable to Wikipedia standards either through proper reliable sourcing or it's own stand alone article.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you possibly add some sources to show this in the article? As it stands right now there isn't anything to verify that these claims are accurate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at the moment.Keep Sources are verifying that the band meets
    WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Though if they exist, it's best to put into the article to help verify claims of notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that with one of the English-language sources. My Russian is rusty and my Azerbaijani and Turkish non-existent so I would rather let those more fluent in those languages check the other sources before they are used in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First it's not a band and
WP:GNG needs significant coverage these sources are nothing more then mentions of winning a youth competition or obscure, unknown competitions. The articles found so far seem to be all for the same event. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no mention in any of the sources that these were youth competitions, and the fact that they have been reported on by the national press means that they are not obscure and unknown. This is an encyclopedia of the whole world written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. And this is a band - a band of dancers. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot to say that the sources cover several events over a couple of years, so they are not "all for the same event". These deletion discussions get very tiresome when editors insist on sticking to entrenched positions rather than take account of evidence that is presented in the discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? You have only provided one, the rest I have look at are only about the one competition which was supported by the a youth organization. That being said you are correct I did make the assumption the competition was a youth competition as most youth organizations wouldn't support the adult version of a competition, I apologize. Regardless in my opinion there has not been any substantial coverage on this group to warrant a full article. I'm more then willing to change my opinion but no one here has demonstrated how this group satisfies any of the inclusion criteria. To be clear this is not a band in how it applies to Wikipedia, a band is musical ensemble which a group of people perform instrumental or vocal music. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting even more tiresome. Look at the Google News search automatically linked by your nomination, that you should have looked at before you saved it, and, even if you don't understand Russian or Azerbaijani or Turkish, look at the dates associated with the sources found. How can you possibly think that they are all about one event when the dates spread out over a couple of years? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; maybe my Google's broken, but when I check the Google News link I get a total of 65 results across three pages. But then I see that the Turkish website Beyaz Gazete is repeatedly listed. But those just link to their own article. That does not meet
    WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable in their own country, but not in the English language. Essentially no references. Prhartcom (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reason for deletion has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. This is an encyclopedia of the whole universe written in English, not an encyclopedia of only the anglophone world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that comment is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you changed your previous opinion that these people are "notable in their own country"? And, if so, what made you change your mind? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your correct observation that notability has no governmental boundaries, which convinced me to strike my reason. However, as I then stated, there are essentially no cited reliable sources proving notability of the article subject. That is my final word on the matter. Prhartcom (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to conduct a discussion, which this is supposed to be, when one of the participants says that this is their final word on the matter. I would ask you further about what you have said here, pointing out that it's a very strange coincidence that your change of opinion about whether this group is notable in its own country happened at the exact same time that you conceded that notability has no governmental boundaries, but there is obviously no point. To anyone else reading this, because Prhartcom has no interest, I would say that this is a pretty obvious example of someone who is unwilling to change an opinion when evidence is presented that it is wrong. That attitude is completely antipathetic to the process by which we are supposed to make decisions here by discussion leading to consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No one is required to change their opinion because you think they should, nor are they required to entertain your whims. So far your "discussion" has been nothing more then
routine coverage and limited to only mentions in each article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I have not asked anyone to change their opinion, but quite the opposite. I have questioned why an opinion that this group was notable in its own country was changed. The editor in question has said that this was their final word on the subject, so discussion with that editor is now impossible. AfD discussions are supposed to be discussions, not final words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead and then Draft as I'm not convinced by the Keep votes that this can be sufficiently and thoroughly improved and my searches found nothing better so I'm not convinced this can be changed as needed soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister, as I have said elsewhere, your many comments in deletion discussions are very difficult to make sense of. Please write in the same way that you would speak to someone face-to-face, rather than obscure your comments with convulated syntax and nonsensical semantics. I'll first try to make sense of your specific points. Are you saying that being "sufficiently and thoroughly improved" is necessary to keep an article? What searches did you perform? What did they find "nothing better" than? What changes are needed? And, to get away from your specific points, as this is supposed to be a discussion rather than a succession of random comments uninformed by the prior discussion, what do you make of the sources that have been linked to above? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:48, 1 May 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

Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 3). MBisanz talk 00:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw

Aimee Cheng-Bradshaw (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:TOOSOON to have an article about her. Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak to moderate keep - The amount of news coverage seen here, as well as the amount of modelling work she has done, covered e.g. here and by some of the article's sources establish that she is at least minorly notable, but perhaps not notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. If not kept, I think a better option would be to redirect to
    Linguist 111talk 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I had a look at the news coverage. There are a total of 19 results, out of which
  • 2 results do not mention her name anywhere in the article [78], [79]
  • Chinese source [80]. Trivial mention as part of a gallery
  • No mention, except for a photo [81]
  • 7 results from Indonesian/Philippines (non-English) containing just a trivial mention of her name (since she was a participant in Asia's Next Top Model) [82],[83],[84],[85],[86],[87],[88].
  • Self published source [89]
  • Trivial mention that she was one of the hosts [90],[91]
  • Trivial mention in a routine television listing [92], [93]
  • Short QnA Interview along with co-host of a new show (article seems to be promoting the new show) [94].
  • 2 sources talk about the article subject in detail, although the former is from a tabloid source and the latter seems to be advertising the programme (see last line of article) [95],[96]
Weighing this against other articles, I am unable to conclude that the article subject is notable enough to deserve an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fluent enough in the other languages to conclude the mentions are trivial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.31.140 (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and Redirect as this is still questionable for solid independent notability, perhaps best known for the show for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:45, 1 May 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. After 2 relists and no clear/determinable consensus, this defaults to keep.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

J. D. Watt

J. D. Watt (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Deadman137 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:GNG. Article has several independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage.--Michiquito (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@Michiquito: @Ajraddatz: which sources make him pass GNG? Joeykai (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two articles in the Calgary Sun, combined with other less reliable sources suggest that he scrapes by for me. I can certainly understand the delete argument, though. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Only one of the Sun articles is of a length to be considered "significant coverage," but since the GNG requires multiple sources, the Sun could run fifty such articles and he still wouldn't pass the GNG on that count alone. Do you have other sources known to be reliable that constitute "significant coverage?" Ravenswing 06:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline recommends coverage in multiple sources. There is at least one, maybe two, sources in which he is the primary subject (which is what the guideline references when looking at significant coverage), and these are supported by a whole bunch of non-reliable sources which nonetheless still offer useful information which is used in the article. To me, this article is well written and well enough referenced to continue to exist. I'm not particularly concerned if you feel different, nor if the article is deleted in the end. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a non-reliable source does anything for any subject's notability. That said, I can see multiple instances of minor coverage in a reliable source adding up to substantial coverage, if they really add up to something significant in total. But all I see here that I would be willing to count for anything in addition to the Sun is the Hockey Future article, because although an interview with the subject and thus largely a primary source, the website still made the editorial decision to interview Watt and run the article. So I can see giving partial credit for that. But at best that still adds up to 1 1/2 sources, and I would look for 2 as a bare minimum to even consider meeting "multiple sources." Rlendog (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to argue that non-reliable sources somehow make the article notable. I'm saying that what it has in reliable sources is good enough for me. The subject seems to be an accomplished former minor-league hockey player. The article isn't just written from a promotional standpoint, and I see very little reason to remove the page considering it has at least some baseline (of course weak) in reliable sources and is well written. From the top of
WP:GNG: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense" - my common sense tells me that there is no reason to delete this article. I understand if people feel differently, and as I say I'm not going to make any fuss if it is deleted. The fact that it uses non-reliable sources contributes to the information present on the page, but of course does not grant it notability in any way. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I normally have no objection to userfying in the case of NN players, but in this fellow's case, he's retired from hockey. Anything to be known about him has been, and it's extremely unlikely that fresh qualifying sources will emerge at this date. Ravenswing 23:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:42, 1 May 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. Player does appear to meet

WP:NHOCKEY #4 after sources were added. No additional comments from the nominator since the sources were included. Nakon 01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bryan Bridges

Bryan Bridges (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, player in the low minors whose career went nowhere. Though playing five games for four teams in one season is kind of impressive. Resolute 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:41, 1 May 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 outlaw motorcycle clubs. Opinion is all over the map. I'm tempted to say merge would be a reasonable compromise, but looking at List of outlaw motorcycle clubs, it looks like the amount of material which would be reasonable to merge is already there, so calling this a redirect.

I'm more or less discounting the comment from

WP:SPA Keeper of The Rope
, whose user name leads me to suspect a close connection with the subject.

Of course, the current text of this article will still be accessible through the history, so there's nothing to keep anybody from digging deeper. That's a content issue, and AfD shouldn't be dictating content. -- RoySmith (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hangmen Motorcycle Club

Hangmen Motorcycle Club (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)

Don't see

ORG. Normally when you see a book reference you figure pretty much all good. Only problem is when you put the word "hangmen" in the handy little search box on the google book page referenced, you get no hits. A Google news search yielded nothing either. John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 09:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment – If not independently notable, an option is to merge to
    WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as there's nothing suggesting the necessary convincing improvements and I myself only a found a few links. Draft the contents if necessary, SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can consider the merge but I can also certainly say this is not solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this club has been in existence since 1960, there are several newer clubs, and far less relevant motorcycle clubs that should be considered for deletion before this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeper of The Rope (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Relevance" defined how? Relevance isn't an inclusion criteria. Coverage in independent reliable sources is required per
    talk) 06:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to List of outlaw motorcycle clubs. Not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. Onel5969 TT me 13:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:PRESERVE. North America1000 06:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:39, 1 May 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. As relisted twice with no clear determinable consensus.

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

J. Downing

J. Downing (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: as non-notable

actor. Possible merge with spouse, Christina Carlisi. Quis separabit? 01:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR prominent role in 43 episodes of Viper, also films such as Ghoulies 2 Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
    WP:NACTOR. Poor article quality does not negate notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NOTE: despite @DaltonCastle's assertion, I did not refer this article for deletion discussion due to "Poor article quality", although that is certainly the case. That I can fix. I also dispute @Atlantic306's claim that the actor is prominent in any way, particularly for having appeared in "43 episodes of Viper, also films such as Ghoulies 2", which is a sad commentary on what, for some, constitutes notability these days. @Atlantic306 has a history of voting to keep almost any crappy and/or ridiculous article no matter how trivial and thus degrading to Wikipedia's reputation as the premier online encyclopaedia, which becomes tiresome. (See [97], [98], [99], [100]), just for starters.) And please don't bother rebuking or chastising me or reminding me about AGF and IAR. I am all too aware but some things need to be said. Quis separabit? 20:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In reply, you are acting as a snob critic. Its bad enough for the creators of the article to be brought to AFD without being belittled as wholly unnotable, or crappy article, and if you think your comments will stop me opposing unnecessary deletions you're mistaken. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as there's nothing suggesting the necessary improvements for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right, "unnecessary deletions",@Atlantic306: that's why you are the sole keep vote for Chiara Bellati and Pension Volkmann, while Sonu Lal was speedily deleted already. Quis separabit? 04:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. First, as the article was created in 2006, being an unsourced blp doesn't apply. However, he does appear to pass
    Ghoulies II, and Robot Wars. The rest of his career reveals that he is a working actor, and he works consistently, but his roles are certainly up and down, from bit parts to significant roles in episodic tv, even significant roles in non-notable films like C'mon Man. While NACTOR only states that they may be notable, I think those 3 significant roles in notable films (regardless of how crappy you think those films are), along with his body of work squeaks him over the level required to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:39, 1 May 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. Nakon 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Awards

AfDs for this article:
Telly Awards (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 an awards mill: people pay to receive an award, which is not evidence of either their or its notability (

WP:ASSERTN, none of which resulted in any reliable independent secondary sourcing being added to the article. KDS4444 (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:18, 1 May 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) — Music1201 talk 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Budugu

Budugu (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 reliable sources indicate that this character passes

talk
) 14:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Delete Not notable enough Daniel Kenneth (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting an explicitly independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here we are running into the
    usual trouble with articles like this: reliable sources, if they exist, are likely to be mostly in Telugu, a language that neither I, nor, I'd assume, the other participants in this discussion can read. Apart from a reference in a 1957 survey of Telugu literature (now added to the article), I stumbled upon a couple of blog posts about the character [101] [102]. Of course, these aren't by themselves enough to establish it as notable, but given the context, they do strongly suggest that it might be. Uanfala (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this book from a university press Budugu "became a house-hold name for over two decades". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for budugu here. Daniel kenneth (talk) 11:09, 1 May 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 00:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Djiboutians in the United Kingdom

Djiboutians in the United Kingdom (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 covers a very small group of people (445 in England and Wales), who are not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I have not been able to find scholarly articles or government reports about Djiboutians in the UK, and they're not covered by the International Organization for Migration's mapping reports that exist for many immigrant groups. As a result, there is very little to base the article on apart from a single statistic from the census, and

WP:GNG is not met. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless these 445 have done something significant as reported in reliable sources then it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Djibouti is a transit point for many other Horn Africans, as well as many british citizens who come from the Horn. Djibouti is among the most closely allied country to the UK on the eastern shore of Africa. Several British citizens who do not have Djoubitian nationality immigrated from within the country after residing there for lengthy periods or even being born there. The increased bilateral relations between the two countries means this nomination is premature and we ought to see what the relation holds in store for the future. Djibouti is deals that extensively with the UK in military, political, economincal and social contexts. All these points more than negate questionable demographics and merely cement the encyclopedic nature of this article.Ninefive6 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
please supply reliable sources to back your claims. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be some misunderstanding about what this article is about, Ninefive6. It's about a very small immigrant community, not bilateral relations between two countries. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already know that. But the point of a comprehensive encyclopedia should be to give even content on minor communities. It seems to me rather redundant to focus only on the larger communtiies everyone already knows about. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there were sources to base an article on, I would agree, Ninefive6. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete instead for now until there's a better solid article independently. SwisterTwister talk 00:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 May 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 per

their fine efforts. (sig) Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Endre Lund Eriksen

Endre Lund Eriksen (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:AUTHOR. Basically this amounts to "writer who exists", but it takes more than that (e.g. major award wins, etc.) to get a writer over the Wikipedia inclusion bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found many references, the only problem is they're all in Norwegian, so I conclude that this author is quite notable in Norway, and that should be good enough to keep the English version of this article. Robman94 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Robman94: Do you know if any of those sources were secondary sources? Many of the sources on the English-language article look primary to me. -- Shudde talk 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shudde: I'm no expert in Norwegian stuff, but they appeared to be secondary to me, not positive though. Examples: 1 2 3 Robman94 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has had a lot of work done to it since it was nominated and currently has 58 references. Is there any need to keep this AfD open? Robman94 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is based on
    WP:BASIC; why were these not found prior to nomination? Sam Sailor Talk! 11:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 11:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Russell (musician)

Ted Russell (musician) (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:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-May be notable, I think needs more info. Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Draft instead because not all of those Books links are solid enough to save this article and this would still need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:10, 1 May 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. Consensus is for deletion. Of note is that

WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work ..." but DGG does not explicitly state this, and point #3 requires that "such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which is not provided. Also of note is that per the top of the section of the guideline page, it states that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." North America1000 10:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth Pitchford

Kenneth Pitchford (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 person the article is about is only notable for being the ex-husband of Robin Morgan. The article mentions that Pitchford is a poet and a novelist but it does not mention a bibliography of his works. The article fails

WP:AUTHOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article makes no actual claim of notability except for who he happens to be related to — but notability is
    WP:AUTHOR. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source and substance him better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete as nothing suggesting the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable as a poet. Worldcat shows two major books of poetry with over 200 holdings, which is high for the subject. His work is included in standard anthologies [103], [104], [105]. which is a specific criterion of notability for poets . His novels, fwiw are trivial & self published. But the first step in judging an author is to seeWorldcat. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am reluctantly voting for this to be deleted. I have done lots of searching and had high hopes I would be able to improve this, unfortunately he is known in secondary sources only for being a husband and father. Other information I found gave a very brief overview of his involvement in the Effeminist Movement. DGG would you be willing to save this article? ツStacey (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Contra
    WP:NPOET simply redirects there. Where does this policy/guideline come from? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 11:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limited Snowboards

Limited Snowboards (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, fails

WP:CORP. Reads like a promotional piece JMHamo (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject as required to establish notability under
    WP:GNG. Searches turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Added: I have reviewed the new sources added by WorldBruce after my !vote. I'm unimpressed. All of them are basically routine coverage, e.g., personnel changes, merger announcements, etc., and are excluded as evidence of notability under
WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Six additional, independent, reliable sources have been added to meet
    WP:CORP. None covers Limited Snowboards in as much depth as the original 700+ word reference. The first Denver Post article is about half-and-half Limited and Volant. A couple focus more on Volant, with only a sentence or two about Limited. Each contains a different nugget of information useful for putting together the complete history of the largest snowboard manufacturer in Canada and its legacy - the outsourcing of production to China, and the end of ski manufacturing in the United States. Any promotional appearance, such as the misuse of bold, can be fixed by editing. At worst, return it to draft space. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Pinging AfC accepter. Interested in what their thinking was and is. Worldbruce (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the above meant to notify Graeme Bartlett so I am completing the action now. SwisterTwister talk 07:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but per
WP:GNG still requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail. Msnicki (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:07, 1 May 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. per Shawn in Montreal's argument

(non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Daniel Mossberg

Daniel Mossberg (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 athlete + not referenced Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as again,
    Shawn in Montreal's evidence confirms notability. SwisterTwister, please look up sources and do not just vote "Delete", as you vote delete 95% of the time, normally with a similar rationale. Please actually think about the article and the notability requirements before deciding. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep In addition to above, worth note that
    WP:SPORTS states "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Since Bandy isn't in the Olympics, its world championships would be considered the highest level. While some argue that this means the Olympics only and World Championships do not rise to that level, this was some a bench-warmer, but the guy that scored the championship winning goal. Also, per the article about Bandy, it is the second most popular winter sport - even if this is a skewed perspective, this is not as if this is some obscure sports championships. In view of what is already found and the contextual factors, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 15:23, 5 May 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. Nakon 22:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe

Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe (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)

Only one source provides in-depth coverage of the subject and even then, the article subject isn't really him. My searches haven't turned up anything better and he appears to be a run-of-the-mill senior manager. SmartSE (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single source does not confer notability. I searched and could find no further reliable sources discussing the subject of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 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. Nakon 22:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miniminter (entertainer)

Simon Minter (miniminter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person doesn't appear to meet

AFC team twice for lack of notability and reliable sources. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    talk) 08:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Millard West Show Choirs

Millard West Show Choirs (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 music group. Apparently created as part of a school WP-editing project, but author has ignored requests from me and other editors (including User:Daclausen, the instructor) to assert and support notability. DMacks (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails
    WP:NOTE. Searching for it results in very little results (none using most of the "find sources" tools.)--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:20, 1 May 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 deleted per

WP:CSD#G5 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

List of music radio stations in Canada

List of music radio stations in Canada (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)

Stereorock (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page was started by what appears to be the sock of a banned user, User:Dung247. Such a list would also be exhaustive as probably the majority of radio stations in Canada are music. Also, this is similar to a previous list started by Dung247 having to do with stations that have ceased their all-news formats.Stereorock (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradis (magazine)

Paradis (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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this suggests better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly unnotable magazine. — Music1201 talk 05:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A magazine which has produced 6 issues in a decade, most recently 4 years ago. Searches show some mention, but relative to its founder more than in its own right. I guess the question is whether the 321 word piece from International Herald Tribune in March 2007 confers lasting notability: I would see it more as a brief notice, as much about founder as magazine, and certainly insufficient to stand alone as a demonstration of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Providing

Providing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 02:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Tareen

Imran Tareen (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)

Okay I had this guy under patrol as there were no sources. Well "sources" were added, but mostly to Youtube, Facebook and even back to Wikipedia! I was about to remove them all, but dang just about every line goes to that and I wasn't about to delete EVERYTHING for that. Also the rest of the sources seem like EL's anyway. This guy has VERY questionable notability. (If anyone wants to delete the refs to youtube/Facebook/Wikipedia, go ahead!) This feels almost like a COI as well. Wgolf (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 01:30, 1 May 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_May_1&oldid=1142621543"