Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 October	14 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Glassman (dentist)

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

no major awards or positions. Fellowships in his organizations are usual for specialists, not high honors. I can find a few publications in Google Scholar [1]: citation count of the highest, 63, 42, 30, 30, 28, 9 . These citation counts are not significant in a biomedical science. Except for one review article, not in any of the major journals in the field, like JADA.

The purported references are trivial PR & advertorials. I assume COI is likely, since the contributor has written no other article. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete non-notable dentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, supposedly a "leading endodontist" in one of Canada's largest cities, although
the sourcing is terrible. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete - Weak only because the subject is covered somewhat in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We On (Must Be)

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

Promotional article, created by the same SPA as

WP:V. TheKaphox T 20:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no, possibly inspiring a tweet doesn't pass
WP:NMUSIC - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above reasons.
Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2011

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:NOTSTATS. The winner's name in the main article is enough here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- promotional and / or fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 20 October 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 Power Challenge. czar 06:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ManagerZone

)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Current references are entirely first-party sources. The1337gamer (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a handful of (probably passing) references/unreliable sources in Google Scholar which should be assessed. --Izno (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is exactly the same article (with possibly worse sources) that was closed as redirect last time, I don't see any problem with simply doing that again. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I didn't bother to check the article history and realise it was previously deleted via AfD. Had I done that, then I would have just redirected and not nominated again but oh well. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries—the content isn't the same and the article history wasn't public so there's no way you would have known czar 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai to Goa Trains

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

Looks like a

WP:NTT, partly applicable. Best to shift for Wikivoyage. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 19:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and, more importantly, the text is a copyvio (see www.revolvy.com). Yintan 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Goa way per above. We'd be inundated with City X to City Y Trains. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, I have proposed the article for deletion per
WP:NOTTRAVEL. The tag has since been removed (by the author of the article). However, little has changed in the article for the past few days, after the removal of the PROD tag. Thus, my original reasoning still stands, so Delete. --Dps04 (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NOTTRAVEL.
Nightfury 12:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: what? a train-route guide?
Anup [Talk] 22:53, 18 October 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) 16:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rising demand for energy

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

Article creator contested PROD. This is an unsourced unencyclopedic essay. Any content that could be covered here would be better in

World energy consumption. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, or alternatively, redirect and
stock tips sprinkled on top. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (

non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

2006 Chicago Bears–Arizona Cardinals game

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

Delete As nom ,You can't have articles for every NFL game. Hundreds of NFL games could get an article where does it end? This is dumb. Delete this. WP:Trivial. You don't need a whole article for this.Josdsioisdome (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Josdsioisdome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete There are hundreds of NFL games where crazy things happen you can't have articles for all of them. This doesn't belong as it's own article ElbeParsley (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — ElbeParsley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking !vote, as ElbeParsley has been blocked as a suspected sock of Josdsioisdome.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If article is deleted, merge the different parts of it to other articles (2006 Arizona Cardinals season, 2006 Chicago Bears season, Brian Urlacher, Dennis Green) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ Keep – Being the creator of this article (four years ago), I'm on the fence about it. I'm not going to say to delete it because other games with crazy moments don't have pages (partially because of
Mati 00:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. The AfD was done two minutes after the nominator started their editing career here. Coincidentally, the next delete vote after that was made by a person who just began his editing career, and voted two minutes after they began editing. There are multiple, independent, reliable sources attesting to this game being one of the biggest comebacks in NFL history. Multiple NFL records were set in this game. This is a clear, unequivocal, blatant pass of
WP:GNG. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This article has more than enough sources and substance to meet
WP:N. The article discusses the context and aftermath of the game in detail as well. There are multiple other sources that state this game and its aftermath are noteworthy and memorable - See: Ranked 6th on NFL.com's Greatest Comebacks of All-Time, Ranked by Yahoo! Sports as one of the Greatest comebacks of the 00's, Sports Illustrated's Epic Chicago Bears Moments, Arizona Sports 98.7FM's 5th greatest Moment at University of Phoenix Stadium, Article from AZ Cardinals' homepage claiming the game as the bears most important victory of the 2006 season. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Actually, we can have articles for every game where something crazy happened. As long as there are sources to support them, which this article has an abundance of. Dennis Green's rant compounds this game's notability. Lizard (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Article was speedy deleted A9 by Bbb23 (

non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Strange Appointments

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

Not enough coverage in

WP:NALBUM. All I can find on this are links to Facebook, Spotify and the like. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note:
WP:CSD#A9. Tagging as such. Jbh ^Talk 15:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. Speedy deleted A9 by David Gerard. (

non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 16:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

ESC/CTRL

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

Not enough coverage in

WP:NALBUM. All I can find on this are links to Facebook and SoundCloud. Jbh ^Talk 15:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note:
WP:CSD#A9. Tagging as such. Jbh ^Talk 15:52, 13 October 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. per

non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Funke Opeke

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

Fails WP:BLP 1900toni (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Tyson

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep He does seem to have been a notable South African journalist and opinion maker. To choose one example, this Gbooks cite for An African Volk: The Apartheid Regime and Its Search for Survival begins by stating: "In his memoirs, Harvey Tyson, editor of the Johannesburg Star, famously wrote that..." It's a passing reference, but an indication of something, I daresay. And then we have this 2010 news piece. These two aren't enough I know but his name comes up as a notable journalist, author and anti-apartheid voice. He does seem to meet criterion 1 of
talk) 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I have added a number of additional sources that I believe are reliable: Department of Information, South African Law Reports, Truth and Reconciliation Commission; as well as several books on Apartheid and the Media in South Africa. If I do a search on Google Books there are thousands of other references. [1]

Please advise what more needs to be provided for the page to change status from "For Deletion" to accepted as a Notable person? Thanks. --Venusdurbino (talk) 07:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22harvey+tyson%22#q=%22harvey+tyson%22+-Pennsylvania&tbm=bks&start=10

One thing that helps a lot for biographies are independent sources about the person, rather than works by the person. And of course awards and honours. Again,
talk) 18:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion North America 1000 This is why I am asking for further input because I have looked at the guidelines and feel that I have met the criteria. Out of the 24 references provided 14 are from external sources including the official SA history site, the Nelson Mandela Foundation and several books. So I am not sure what more to do? Venusdurbino (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that

Shawn in Montreal provided the advice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yep, thanks North America (I've never thanked my continent before). Venusdurbino, you'll have to just be patient. I was hoping another South African editor would come along with some killer refs. That hasn't happened and may not. Just be patient. I won't presume to predict what the closing administrator would decide. This could well be relisted more times. One relisting is often not enough.

talk) 00:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources written by prople other than Tyson found by the Google Books search that show that he was one of the most influential journalists in South Africa for several decades. I'll add a citation to this book review in an academic journal and maybe some more sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Detective Kalita

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

Delete. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator here, back in 2006 when our basic notability standards for bands and our rules about sourcing were much looser than they are today. At the time, having one independently notable member was enough, as was having one track on a compilation album -- and even if it had to be sourced better than this to get a quality class promotion, a band's own primary source website about themselves was considered enough verification in and of itself to stave off outright deletion. But given all we've learned over the intervening decade, those quite rightly aren't the rules that apply in 2016 -- the basic NMUSIC claim now has to be quite a bit stronger, as does the depth of

reliable source coverage. And after searching both Google and ProQuest, pretty much the only coverage I can find now is glancing acknowledgements of their existence in articles about their record label, and even the primary source website itself is now a dead link -- which means I can't add any real sourcing, or any new substance, to bring it back up to 2016 inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete You have clearly stated why the article is not notable, but why don't you do a speedy delete under criteria G7? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G7 only applies if the creator is the only substantive editor of the article, but my assessment of the article history was that I'm not. And even if we accept that I'm just being overly cautious and actually could G7 it myself on the grounds that the followup editors weren't really substantive enough to forestall that, I also agree with Squeamish's suggestion below that an article that's been around for a decade isn't really a good candidate for G7 — even as an admin who is a relatively active user of the speedy function, I would frankly almost never, except maybe occasionally in the most extenuating circumstances, use any speedy criterion to get rid of any article that had already been around for that long. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Well, Exclaim! has this bio/review/interview thing with Andy Swan, the lead from the band. Critically, it reveals that the band name-changed itself to The Michael Parks at some point. Two years later, they published this which doesn't make the band name/composition/history any clearer. Unfortunately, false positives are a nightmare here. Andy Swan is also the name of a Canadian politican who got rather a lot of press coverage (and means I can't even use Canadian sources to filter for what I want). Michael Parks is a really common name (and the most famous of them has a music career himself). I'm not finding anything encouraging in reliable sources for "Detective Kalita" or for "The Michael Parks" (that isn't that other Michael Parks!), but that doesn't mean I haven't missed them. I suspect that it might be easier to assemble a case for an article on Andy Swan that mentions his various groups, but even there, I'm coming up largely blank on independent reporting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I don't think any six-year-old article is a good fit for CSD G7. Although this has been touched largely only by bot processing since its creation, and so satisfies the letter of the criterion, I don't feel it's strictly in line with the spirit of G7. Besides, there's never anything wrong with community input when so much could potentially have changed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, nothing more to add. Mea culpa, I did the same in 2007 with a couple of stinkers. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 14 October 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

non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Alkarzabih Shkal

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

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

I dclined
WP:CSD#A7 but this subject is probably not sufficiently notable, per lack of credible sourcing, so I am bringing it here. This may be fixable but maybe not, from a quick Google. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I nominated this for CSD. Author is part of a sock farm who has also been vandalising, and creating disparaging anti-American pages(drafts), in addition to obviously fabricated ones. Obviously here not to create an encyclopedia but instead on an ideological crusade. The references do not support anything that is claimed and a Google doesn't reveal a thing, and so doesn't even pass
WP:GNG David.moreno72 15:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I checked history and the user is not blocked. Is there an SPI? Guy (Help!) 00:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK. ansh 666 00:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete G3. Per my comments at the related
Ghardabiya Air Base). In any case, there's no mention of an Alkarzabih Shkal in any reliable sources, nor even in any unreliable sources outside of Wikipedia. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As someone who knows some Arabic I agree with Ossifrage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why would a Libyan soldier be wearing US army uniform? Per ossifrage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, created by a sockpuppet of User:Caradoc29105. ansh 666 23:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nasser Zakaria

Al-Nasser Zakaria (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)

Declined
WP:PROF is probably the applicable standard. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Had 1 source which did not qualify as a
WP:RS. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Being a politcian at the level he is is not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP / lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 14 October 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 23:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Joiner

Scott Joiner (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 coverage in
WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of references packed into this article but very few of them mention the subject in more than a passing manner. Those that do are blogs. A web search turns up mostly social media like LinkedIn etc. or passing mentions. Jbh ^Talk 15:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted above, the page's current references are deceiving since the subject is only mentioned in passing in RS. Meatsgains (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save - The references I included may not be the best sources on the subject. I can certainly find better ones. User:PrincipessaLucia —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — PrincipessaLucia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you have
reliable sources that devote significant coverage ie a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs, please add them to the article. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. What is the time frame in which this must be done? PrincipessaLucia (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD will run for a minimum of 7 days. Also, please indent your comments, it makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages will help explain how to do that. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 16:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Creating a role in a notable opera and singing as a soloist at Carnegie Hall, apart from Joiner's other activities, seem just enough to satisfy
WP:MUSBIO. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - New to Wikipedia, but not new to the arts. I'm passionate about opera and new opera composers. I uploaded some print articles on the subject, who appears to meet all the criteria outlined in the Notability Guidelines from the link above. Also found many more newspaper reviews in which the subject and the subject's work is mentioned in a more-than-casual commentary. User:HexaKord415 (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — HexaKord415 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Where are these articles? I don't see them anywhere. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:V purposes, which it doesn't have. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 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 that this band does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Chunk and The Persistent Wafer

Crab Chunk and The Persistent Wafer (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 band. I've redirected a couple of articles on (imo) nn recordings to this page; I imagine that if this article goa they go too. TheLongTone (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band which don't fill any notability criteria. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Clearly self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not self-promotional, as I made the original article. They are a band that has a lot of buzz around them in the underground music scene of Auckland, however this does not mean they deserve a wikipedia page, especially due to a distinct lack of proof of any or all relevance on the internet. User:ApparentlyIDK (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: does not fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Not self-promotional. A well known Auckland experimental band User:AntisepticAngery (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_C_Shapcott

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Robert C Shapcott

Robert_C_Shapcott (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 of article fails notability criteria. Article seems to be lifted wholly from an obituary published only in the trade publication (Australian Veterinary Journal) of subject. Search of Google, Google Scholar and Google Books returns no results.
Wayne 11:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Wayne 11:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As per nom. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:SPA, article states it is based on an obituary, no other sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wyler Military School

Wyler Military School (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 military school appears to have only taught elementary and middle school age and I can only find 2 sources. The first is an advert in Boys' Life and the second is an article about a sexual assault scandal involving the headmaster and another teacher. It doesn't meet
WP:ORG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I believe
WP:ORG. Dolotta (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable school. Sources are lacking and the ones that exist don't meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable school per WP guidelines, doesn't exist any more, and Wikipedia is
not a newspaper. Artcle serves no useful purpose in an encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 17 October 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. No consensus for a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zyrion Traverse

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

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

This article has been in articlespace since 2008. At prima facie "it's been here since 2008" is a weak argument for keeping the article. (In my opinion, the 2008 article should have had the title just plain title Zyrion, but that's only tangential to this discussion.)
The Zyrion brand is defunct. Its brand and products were acquired by Kaseya in 2013.
Should this article be deleted? Maybe some other options?

Do not delete: while now defunct, Zyrion was a significant enterprise software company in *foo* about *bar*?

Delete: defunct, and non-notable company?

Delete, but include a section
copied from the deleted article in Kaseya
?

WP:REDIRECT to Kaseya
?

Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect only if actually needed because this is such a blatant advertising and it's still been when it was restarted in 2008, after it was then deleted as G12 advertising; as expected with company advertisements especially ones that have been company-supplied, none of this actually substantiates convincing for both independent notability and substance with non-PR influences, therefore it's unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I would ask participants in this discussion to also address the suggestions for possible alternate outcomes. Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kaseya (who own it now) are a plausible redirect target, but that's a low-quality promotional article too - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shirt58 (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable to be here. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable subject. I don't see a point of a redirect to Kaseya since the latter has a notability tag on its page since 2012. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 17 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anjou Interchange

Anjou Interchange (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)

Well, the obvious concern is notability: Wikipedia is not just a repository of information (even true, and arguably useful one). I completely ascribe to Floydian's arguments in that similar AfD ~~(same creator, BTW)~~. I would have redirected, but the interchange is not mentioned there. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article and
talk) 01:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed. Sorry about that. I cannot remember how I came to think of that.

In my defense, User_talk:BT101 already had two PROD notices when I nominated. Something must have shortcircuited in my mind. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt an interchange is coveraged by
WP:GEOLAND, is it? There were some vague mentions of the interchange to be found on less reputable sites but no coverage focusing on the interchange itself, other than a few Youtube videos possibly. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 03:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You'd best search for it under its French name (esp. as it's an east-end interchange; Montreal island has a more anglo west side). Here's the Gnews results for that.
talk) 03:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
talk) 01:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete We don't need a stub on every single non-notable feature. Is there any redirect target by any chance - like is list or something? If yes, then I am OK with a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well,
WP:SURPRISE for the reader. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah I see. In that case, I guess deleting is best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, legend says that it is possible to edit other articles to make them suitable redirect targets. We could do that, too. But I am not sure how to do it, and I doubt it is worth it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from
talk) 01:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete.
WP:CSD#G5 -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Shamarkazün

Shamarkazün (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)

Looks like a possible hoax. The single reference does not support anything in the article. The website slp.org, belongs to the 'Socialist Labor Party of America'. The flag appears to be a possible copyright violation or unsourced and been previously deleted, and, it's 'insignia' is from the '102nd Motorised Division Trento', a motorised infantry division of the Italian Army during World War II. David.moreno72 11:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3, with sanctions against the creating sockfarm. Clearly fabricated, as noted in the nomination, as well as by observing that no plausible transliteration of anything Arabic would result in "Shamarkazün". Additionally, the file name assigned to the "flag" here suggests it was intended as a fictional future flag of Libya. Furthermore, the only internet presence of this word, outside of this article, is Alkarzabih Shkal (currently itself tagged for CSD A7). That article is also a poorly-crafted piece of fiction. It cites primarily this Arabic-language page by the Libyan government's Ministry of Labour. Even a machine translation of that page is sufficient to demonstrate that, no, it does not in any way talk about the Shamarkazün, nor anything that could be plausibly described as the Shamarkazün, nor anyone named remotely similarly to "Alkarzabih Shkal". There will need to be some effort taken to ensure that this material hasn't worked its way into any other, more legitimate, articles, as there are several accounts being used to further it: Shamarkazün and obvious sockpuppet Shaa MarkazÜn (in the main article), Jakeacts (who ran up 10 rapid edits before creating the hoax bio as an end-run around a failed AFC), and Alkarzabih Shkal (a different effort at getting the bio created). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ossifrage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why would a Libyan soldier be wearing US army uniform? Per ossifrage — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, created by a sockpuppet of User:Caradoc29105. ansh 666 23:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Brigitta Littlepage

Zoe Brigitta Littlepage (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)

Woman-with-a-job. I suppose you could say the settlement amounts are a claim of
WP:ROUTINE. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unless fixed: As it stands, the article is promotional, and rests on a set of sources that are mostly directory entries and articles about cases Littlepage has handled which either only mention her in passing or do not mention her at all. However, the section on "Legal Career" mentions a lot of awards and notable achievements, and if sources could be provided for most of these, it might prove notability. ubiquity (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all true, I do not see any notability-granting award (unless maybe the Fortune list, which I could not track down). The $$ amounts are another thing, but not that impressive by US standards (with much larger damage money than in other countries). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lawyers are not default notable. Lawyers who advertise heavily in local media markets to attract clients still are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The cases listed don't represent anything unusual in American legal practice and would not confer notability even with sources. agtx 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per
G3. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Play School The Movie

Play School The Movie (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)

Putting aside articles issues such as "aiming for a release in the winter of 2007", I simply could not confirm the existence of a film named "Play School" by Rob Minkoff, let alone its notability.
Note that ABC still produces a series, but not with Minkoff's involvement as far as I can tell (see e.g. [2]) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – None of the information in the article seems to be verifiable. With all the big names, if this were a real film it would have generated press. Looks like a hoax to me. —Laoris (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this was
WP:G3-ed by Nthep [3]. Shall we close the AfD as moot? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspiria (2017 film)

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

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

Too soon - fails
McGeddon (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Already covered better at Suspiria#Remake. --Michig (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Michig said, it's already covered in another article. We can recreate this once we know production has started. Normally I'd say to redirect it, but a 2017 release date seems to be original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 14 October 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 and Salt per (a)
WP:SNOW below, and (c) apparent request from article subject.. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was draftified. Procedural close. (
non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Ford Bronco (second generation)

Ford Bronco (second generation) (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 crystal ball ford has not officially announced the new Bronco Flow 234 (Nina) talk 09:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to draft space.Pyrusca (talk) 22:06, 13 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of .io Games

List of .io Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable or sensible list: apparently it's about games with names that end in the country code ".io". Other than that, they do not seem to have anything in common. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the sources before the list was nominated and decided to be neutral on the topic. ".io games" is a real topic. What exactly the overlap is between such games is vague. Touch Arcade seems to suggest that .io games are games in which "you'll be competing with other players in a shared world to be the most powerful player at any given time." Pocket Gamer tells the reader that they are probably "sick of .io games", noting that they are addictive. Kill Screen mentions that something is an .io game. Then there are the websites I've never heard of before: Dailygame.net has an article on "the wide world of .io games" and The Koalition has an article about browser games in general with a strong focus on .io games. As you can see, these sources are weak. The list can be really useful to quickly describe .io games that are noted by very few sources, but again, the issue is that many of these sources are just really weak... ~Mable (chat) 10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maplestrip, if that's the case, shouldn't there be an article about the concept of ".io game" exist, before there can be a list of .io games? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A list of works falling under a certain type can cover that if not much is to be said about the topic. I'd imagine an article titled
.io games wouldn't cover any more information than this list would optimally do. To clarify, I think this list needs a "background" or "description" section, but I doubt that it can be very long. Removing the whole list would leave very little content. I personally think the list format would be the best way to handle this subject, though I am sad that the sources are so weak. ~Mable (chat) 10:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Another article from Koalition [4] talks about .io games in general and characterizes them as multiplayer games. It would be easy to miss the link in the first sentence to the article about the domain name .io. That article does not make it clear why games developers would choose that domain, which if sourceable might help us to fill in the background to this topic. Not ready to vote keep yet, but it's my feeling that this is definitely a "thing" and that since we pride ourselves on coverage of this topic area, we should try to save this if possible: Noyster (talk), 11:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 12:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kind of leaning towards Soeterman's stance here. We shouldn't have a list article when we don't even have an article on the subject itself. The current set up is terrible: There's no parent article, and the list article doesn't define what its even listing off. Its also usually a bad sign if almost every item in the list doesn't have its own article. Not exactly sure how to word it in terms of an AFD stance, and there's a number of ways of to go about doing it, but I basically think that 1) the list should not exist (yet at least), but the sourcing shows that 2) an article could exist on the topic, should one actually write an article on it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An article on
.io game may end up as a permastub, though, or at most a short start-class. Not that we have to create such a thing any time soon. ~Mable (chat) 17:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
If there's that little to be said on it, then I'm not sure its worth having a list article for it either... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement on gaming companies to keep .io games restricted to a particular genre, or even for there only to be games in the .io TLD (I expect .io is used by other types of sites). So from this point of a view, this is a very loose collection, at best. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No articles for the individual games, no notability. This list could go on forever, adding one non-notable game after the other, and it would be as useful and encyclopedic as a List of red Volkswagens in the Netherlands (1950 - 1965). Game over. Yintan 19:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested that the list would be useful for games that do not meet notability guidelines, but have been discussed by one or two sources. With those inclusion criteria, the list "being endless" wouldn't be an issue. ~Mable (chat) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list article - per my comments above - as most entries do not have their own article. No prejudice towards creating an article about the subject itself if the sourcing can be scrounged up sufficiently, and maybe even splitting it off into a list article if the main article got too long someday. But its not really warranted right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a product guide. To me, an analogy might be something like "list of car models starting with the letter P" or somesuch. Not encyclopedic at all. W Nowicki (talk) 17:57, 14 October 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. this seems to be borderline, and further discussion is unlikely to help. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranadhir Sarma Sarkar

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 assertion of adequate
WP:ANYBIO. The only thing that comes up in searches is he subject's Wikipedia page. Simply being a civil servant is not a basic for notability. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holder of a senior civil service post, which is a basis for notability. Hardly surprising that internet searches bring up little for someone who reached his peak in the early 1970s! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what notability criteria? Not NPOL or ANYBIO. The only source we have for him is a list of former Chairman. What chance is there that an article on him will ever be anything than a permanent-sub-stub that says "R.S. Sarkar is a former Chairman of USPC of India"? The source in the article does not even have the years he served. That he has books in the LoC is pure
WP:OR. The article claims he is dead but we have no source for that and the only indication fof his birth year is in the LoC book record which shows "1908-" which indicates he is alive. Jbh ^Talk 16:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually we do not even have evidence he was a sivil servant. The article refers to him simply as a bureaucrat and our article on the Union Public Service Commission says "At least half of the members of the Commission are Civil Servants (working or retired) with minimum ten years of experience" so being Chairman does not imply he was a civil servant. Jbh ^Talk 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hair-splitting. A public servant if not actually a civil servant (although I suspect the chairman actually is a civil servant). See the second entry at
WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The point is that we have literally no
verifiable information on him other than a listing that says that at one time he was Chairman of UPSC. Having to say "...I suspect.." about something basic relating to the fundamental claim of an article subject's notability problematic. POLOUTCOMES pt 2 says "... especially if they had an otherwise notable career." We have no idea what this person has done because we have no sources. If there were any sources that mentioned this person other than an entry on a list on the website of the department he once chaired I could be convinced otherwise based on what the sources. Even passing GNG does not require an article be kept. If there is a list of former chairman in our UPSC article a redirect would be reasonable.
Anyway, thank you for the link to POLOUTCOMES. Jbh ^Talk 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: I believe
Anup [Talk] 23:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It's not enough to assert that adequate sources exist to get him over
WP:GNG. You have to explicitly show that sufficient sourcing exists, preferably by actually adding it to the article (although showing the hard results of an actual search for sources in this discussion would be acceptable as well). But we don't keep a poorly sourced article just because somebody believes that better sources might exist — we can keep it only if somebody does the work and explicitly shows that better sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Not somebody believes something, that "somebody" is the Wikipedia Community here. Our policy NEXIST says that, Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. And my !vote is based on the same.
Anup [Talk] 05:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
My entire point being that you haven't shown that such sources do exist; you've merely asserted that there's a possibility that such sources might exist. That's not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of adequate sourcing. While it's true that people who were active in the 1970s might be harder to source via a Google search alone, that fact does not exempt the article from having to be sourced properly — you still have to do the work of digging into microfilms or news retrieval databases, and adding enough sources to the article to get it over
self-published list of its own chairpeople. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Passes
WP:GNG, especially given that the fellow was active in the non-Internet era. His books have been referred to by many authors. Check out the additions to the article now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for digging up more information. It seem though that the only source independent of him is Diplomacy & Diaspora. Two of the references are just footnotes where he was cited (Which is
WP:OR since no third party has commented on it.) and not about him while the others are his own books, none of which counts towards GNG. Could you give some idea of what Diaspora & Diplomacy has to say about him is it a passing mention ie is he simply listed as committee member? Or is there something in depth?
I looked at the citations given to his books to see if he might pass NAUTHOR or PROF but his 4 books are cited by only 15, 8, 7, and 2 other works [5].
I am unfamiliar with the position of Law Secretary of Government of India. The only place that the term used is in this article [6] while Law Secretary of Goverment shows up only 3 times including this article [7]. So without more information I do not think it would qualify under NPOL. Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 02:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Two of the references are just footnotes where he was cited and not about him... The references were used to show what that the sentence before them stated; that his books have been "referred to by other academics". You removed this sentence from the article giving edit summary as "books cited 15, 7,8,2 times based on Gscholar. Using random books citing his works to support a claim of "cited by other accedemics" is WP:OR" How is this OR? I actually submitted works of academics which have used Sarkar's work and attributed him thus. What is OR in this?
He is simply listed as committee member, the committee was of three people.
What do you mean by only 15, 8, 7, and 2 other works? What is the minimum required criteria?
Law Secretary is the highest position in the Main Secretariat office of New Delhi within the Department of Legal Affairs. ref. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is OR because you went and found books he was cited in and you decided that it was significant not an independant reliable source. That is the very essence of
Permanent Secretary? Jbh ^Talk 14:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I presented references to where Sarkar has been used as reference by other academics. This might be PRIMARY, but is in no way OR. For the secretariat thing please refer the non-wiki ref link I provided above; our articles are quite shabby. He wasn't an elected Minister but an appointed law secretary of the department. I don't know how it translates to the British synonymous. But as India's structure is very much similar you might say that its similar to Permanent Secretary.
Yeah... fine he doesn't pass Academic's metric. My claim was always of GNG. He touches that academic metric, gets appointed to two highest posts, of law Secretary and chairman of the UPSC. That's GNG based on online sources from an internet-free era. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the Google scholar link you gave is giving only citations of his four books. It is not accounting his writings in various journals. For example, his article "Role of Government Departments in Legislative Process" that was published in Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies in 1968 has been referred to in this book. His another article titled "Specialists and Generalists" published in 1973 has been referred to in this book; "Press and Privileges of Parliament" (1981) has been referred to in here; "Legislative Relations" (1986) is referred in here; "The Office of Governor" (1969) goes in here. I am providing only one example of each journal entry for simplicity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 02:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article still fails to demonstrate a pass of
WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

NAUTHOR is for creative professional. Not sure writing law-related books falls under creative writing or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note An IP went through and deleted the nomination statement and delete !votes [8] and the article's AfD notice [9] immediately after the article's protection, which was placed becuase of AfD removal, expired [10]. The article creator was blocked as a sock [11] of Sarkarrishavsarma. Jbh ^Talk 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And now two more IPs have attempted to blank par tor all of the AFD [12] [13] Meters (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonable references for a subject whose career mostly took place in the pre-internet era and reasonable assertions of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a case where WP:POLITICIAN is met with the national government positions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Astra (radio personality)

Astra (radio personality) (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)

Allegedly A7 article, but there is history here and NY is big area, so I'm listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% self promotion. Main editor is clearly the subject of the article. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and page reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warstic

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

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

I spoke to the user who started and submitted this Draft and they told me there's simply not any additional news sources, and I'll note the ones listed here are simply thin and unconvincing, solely based coverage from the fact 2 baseball players invested and started it; my own searches are mirroring this and that's not not convincing. There's simply nothing else but the named mentions of either other people or groups, the fact this company is also so newly started, that's also suggesting there's not a lot of leeway for notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The original draft was not acceptable
WP:NPOV
-wise, and the sourcing was only about the recent announcements of new investors. But after searching a bit I leaned to accepting the draft because of additional source found from 2012 about the company:

Graphic designer hits one out of the park in the
Dallas Morning News

Batter up: One Fast Buffalo designer Ben Jenkins’ other project in the
Dallas Morning News

Combined with other sources already on the article, This company passes
WP:CORP, and can be expanded in a neutrally-written manner based on those sources. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC) (note: added another dallas morning news ref, from 2011) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - The listed sources are merely about the two people investing and then about the company's business and finances because of it, the listed news link above is then actually an interview where the man himself is talking about his career and the company. This is not the substance actually needed for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have not convinced me to change my !vote. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I added this 2012 source to the article:

Of Bats and Men: From Louisville Sluggers to Warstic Bats by Micael Dault in Through The Fence Baseball

I just added it to the External links section, but now leaning towards adding it as a normal ref, based on it being a from a RS in relation to baseball news.[14]. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - another early source found from early 2011, added to article, this small review:

Swingin' Sluggers - On the field or over a mantel, you won't find a sharper looking bat in the
Wall Street Journal

So the nominators and company rep who said no other sources exist beyond the 2016 investment coverage... are clearly factually inaccurate. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even then, simply having a source from the WallStreetJournal is still not alleviating the concerns listed that (1) the only attention is because of 2 major league baseball players involved with it and (2) the fact there's still not enough large substance to suggest otherwise better, both sources are still questionable with the existing amount of bearing weigh for the subject, therefore my concerns still actually apply since I listed the concerns clearly and genuinely along with the fact this is still such a newly started company, hence especially the needs for PR attention, emphasized deeper with the fact of, again, having 2 sportspeople with it. SwisterTwister talk 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing. Your arguments have not made me change my vote. Article is a keeper. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a
WP:TOOSOON also applies; the company is not yet notable per available sources. Article create by user with one contribution Special:Contributions/JohnnyBattle so paid editing is about 100% certain, which is against policy. Keeping this article on a non-notable entity would only encourage the spammers, which is not in the best interest of the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. In addition to sources mentioned at this AfD article has sources to WP:TOOSOON rather than deletion, given the sources that do exist.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 11:49, 21 October 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 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magician Dor

Magician Dor (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 does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under this name, I've found a couple of RSS:[18] (and reprinted), and [19]. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Let's see what we can get with a better search:
Three more: [20], [21], [22], all of which reference Dor as a main character, sufficient to be named in a terse summary of the novels in which it appears. I'll note that the character is already covered in
Magicians of Xanth, which would be an appropriate merge target if one were needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What is any of that supposed to show? There's nothing there. Where's the critical commentary? Where is the analysis? These are useless, one-shot mentions in the majority of those. TTN (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where analysis or critical commentary are required by
WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Both the criteria of Non-trivial coverage as detailed by N and that the article must be more than simple plot regurgitation per NOT, which WAF explains how to accomplish, show the importance of real world info. Non-trivial coverage is quite clear in the guideline. These mentions are just that, trivial with no context dedicated to the character from a real world standpoint. The article is currently just plot, so it fails NOT as well. You seemingly like to ignore both these things, but they are very clear in their application. TTN (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... All of which is a roundabout way of you acknowledging that GNG, which says nothing of the sort, is the standard for inclusion, while WAF is a content guideline which helps us organize articles on topics which meet thi inclusion threshold. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do like how you just sort of ignore the argument and cover your ears. Something about fiction cannot be nontrivial without covering it from a real world perspective. If it is not talking about something from a real world perspective, it is talking about the work of fiction and mentioning the character or topic from an in-plot perspective. Something mentioned from in universe perspective cannot be anything other than trivial. Something only mentioned in a trivial context cannot be notable. Playing silly word games does not make you right.TTN (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What, like we haven't gone round and round on this same debate in a dozen other AfD's? Your ideas of significant coverage and mine differ, so I'm really only replying to demonstrate to other !voters and closing admins that I do not find your rebuttals of my sources compelling. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's not really an argument with differing opinions. You're just wrong. Significant coverage is specifically defined in the guideline. You just seem to ignore that and bring up the same roundabout logic most of the time. I have never seen anyone truly directly agree with you. TTN (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you actually follow
WP:BEFORE for every AfD you start--heck, ANY AfD you start--then you'll actually have standing to start that discussion. Or when you actually create or improve any content.... but, to be fair, I haven't examined your entire history--have you ever created or improved any content, or has your entire existence on Wikipedia been dedicated to deleting others' donations? Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
BEFORE is utterly irrelevant at this point. When you have hundreds of cookie-cutter 5-10 year old articles that nobody cares about enough to properly deal with (either improving or merging them), we have long passed the point of due consideration. When you have active users who log out and periodically bring back articles fairly merged under merge discussions (bad faith, but it's obviously one or more of the D&D project members), it becomes pointless to try to fairly merge anything. The proper way to deal with fiction is "Article on work --> fictional subject in article has too much weight placed on it --> fictional subject gets split out." Just because these articles existed before that standard was properly implemented, it's not my problem to expend every effort to prove they are not notable. And why exactly should I have to create anything? People like you seem to see the thought process of cleaning up bad articles as some kind of affront to decency. It's no different than a guy who wants to spend four hours per day doing project categorization. I wouldn't particularly call it helpful in the same way as making a FA, but it's just a thing someone wants to do. TTN (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contempt for BEFORE is contempt for the volunteers who created things. You might want it to be a perfectly planned encyclopedia run by professionals, but the fact is it's not, and your idealistic thoughts on how fictional element articles ought to be spun out isn't how it has ever happened, anywhere on Wikipedia, to the best of my knowledge. TTN, you've never cleaned up a bad article, ever. You've destroyed volunteered work, sure, but that's not the same as cleaning up a terrible article. That's what *I* do. Go nominate Yellow Star (novel) for AfD if you think it deserves it. THAT is cleaning up a lousy article, and it's exactly what I would be doing more of if I didn't have to consistently watch over your nominations for things that should be improved. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite bulky and off-topic, but oh well. No, it's the desire to remove a bunch of mostly pointless content without having to go through the same pointless motions each time. I don't know how many times I left a merge tag, let an article sit for a month or two with no discussion because they were utterly devoid of interested editors like most of these articles, finally merged them, and then had some guy like you claim there was still no consensus because there was no discussion, despite the fact that both the idea of the
WP:BRD
are practiced to great effect. And these were not people who cared about the content, but simply people who wikilawyered over the idea of consensus for no reason. People like you don't seem to understand the very simple idea of returning to zero and then expanding back out. Instead of keeping three hundred bad articles where 2% may have some potential, redirect all of them and let those 2% naturally grow. There is no need to give each article the same weight as if they are all equally valid. If you fide a truly good article during that process, speak up about it obviously, but playing silly semantics games just to "save" them is ludicrous.

You're simply saying someone with a different editing mindset compared to you is "bad" out of a very strange emotional standpoint. Applying standards to content is the normal thing to do. Calling bad content volunteer work is just pure puffery. Most of those D&D articles at least look aesthetically nice compared to something like this, but you and I both know that pretty much all existing content would be wiped out if those articles could be put forward for GA or FA status. Plot information is gutted to a reasonable extent, content is rewritten and removed, and pretty much everything is changed. Unless it's the same core editors editing the article, it is doubtful much of any of the original content remains. You can say it was built on their work, but that's no different in the end (other than edit history in the case of a delete outcome at least). You could have some editor write a plot summary with such beautiful prose that it puts the original author to shame, but it would still have to be cut down if it was too large. Is that destroying volunteer work? No, it's following standards. TTN (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm willing to continue engaging with you, if for no other reasons than I do appear to be correct about your contempt for volunteer editors' lame contributions. I reiterate: I don't make these messes, but would rather clean them up than delete them if for no other reason than to encourage good-faith editors (acknowledging that at least some of the IP-based de-merges may be otherwise) to keep producing content motivated by enthusiasm for cultural phenomena such as role-playing games or fantasy literature. When I look at problematic content in Wikipedia, fiction isn't what I see: I see ethnic, national, or religious conflict. I see paid advocacy and subtle commercialization. I see Infobox wars and The Beatles vs. the Beatles. Sure, this stuff needs to be improved, all of it, and much of it should be merged appropriately. But it's 1) not a significant problem and 2) the cleanup campaign you carry out leads in some small part to the dismay of new editors and the decline in active editorship. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep reiterating that line like it means anything. Some small kid writing an article about his "cool dad", someone creating a plethora of non-notable articles about their local town, and someone creating articles on non-notable fictional characters are all well-meaning people thinking they're properly contributing to this encyclopedia. But you don't just let that stuff sit because they're well-meaning. It gets quickly deleted and then hopefully someone nicely explains the reasoning to them. There's also a vast difference between a recent article and all these articles from a decade ago. These have been given plenty of time, many having been tagged for just as long, and they still have not reached a state of being able to exist independently. This site is so large at this point that no amount of cleanup is ever going to fix all the problem areas, but this is the area I like to edit. You act like I'm personally slapping the faces of active editors, but pretty much any argument on this site will lead to some kind of hurt feelings. In almost all your examples above, someone is going to feel like they lost. I would objectively agree that removing a BLP violation is more important than removing a bad fictional article, but that doesn't make the act of removing a bad fictional article a pointless either. I also personally feel that removing masses of articles would probably encourage more people to edit than it would drive away. Look at the mess of the Transformers articles. Nobody new is going to touch that jumbled mess of articles. TTN (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens.
talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I only glanced at the article and saw zero third-party (or indeed any) sources cited in the article; this results in an instant "delete" per
WP:GNG irrespective of other concerns. Only sources cited in the article itself are helpful to readers, not in obscure discussion pages like this one. Sandstein 11:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll note that this !vote directly contradicts
WP:NEXIST. Shame on you @Sandstein:: you surely know better. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability is overrated. If nobody can be bothered to add refs to the actual article even during an AfD, nobody is likely to bother later. And only refs in the actual article itself make it verifiable to the reader and therefore worth existing. Surely you have more worthwhile things to do than reflexively defending fancruft for its own sake? I like good articles about fictional topics as much as anybody, but part of the good writer's skill set is knowing what to leave out. Sandstein 05:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possibly merge into one of the Xanth related articles, though, I'm not sure where an appropriate place would be. There are simply no sources that show why this character is notable, simply that yes, he exists as the main character of a couple books in the series. The sources provided above are nothing beyond simple plot synopsis, that do nothing to establish any sort of notability. In fact, one of these sources is nothing more than an index that lists brief, couple sentence plot summaries for literally hundreds of books, with the character in question being only mentioned as the main character of them. That is pretty much as trivial of a source that there could possibly be. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the IP editor above. The sources above show that the character exists, but they don't have any depth at all to them. If all a source says is that a character appeared in a novel, we shouldn't have an article on that character.
Wikia can catalog the in-universe details better than we can. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per above two comments.
Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Paquette

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

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

I was able to find this [23] report, but it is essentially a press release. Basically Paquette was Miss New Hampshire USA, and that alone does not make her notable. There are no reliable sources that would lead to passing of the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought this name sounded familiar. I created this article back in 2012. That was when I was under the impression that every winner of a state Miss USA or state Miss America affiliate pageant was notable. I have since decided that such is not the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:WHYN: insufficient sources to build a full bio; no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:WHYN. We seriously don't have enough sources to write an article. The information is already covered in the respective articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Mississippi USA . MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Laviano

Leah Laviano (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)

Laviano was Miss Mississippi USA. This alone is not enough to make someone notable. A google search showed up a few mentions of her real estate business in Chesapeak, Virginia, but nothing approaching being additional reliable source coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a weakly sourced vanity page at this point; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 4 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Mississippi USA The subject has 2 claims of significance - Miss Mississippi USA and being a runner up of Miss USA 2008. Both facts are mentioned on the target page, so I guess in this case a redirect wouldn't hurt. At least the claim of significance is much more than others. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 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.
WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Richard Yaw Amankwaa

Richard Yaw Amankwaa (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)

Amankwaa seems notable mostly for having signed the artist "Strongman" to his record label, but there is not evidence that Strongman is notable, nor is
notability inherited. Amankwaa appears to get some coverage in the lesser entertainment blogs of Ghana for his statements, but I don't see any real sign of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 4 October 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, 13 October 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Note that I have moved the article to the title "The Garden (pastoral station), as suggested by Gnangarra herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gardens (Pastoral Station)

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~~-~~The place is nothing notable!!! Dearth of source!!~~
❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep-The article has enough sources to be allowed without a doubt!
❯❯❯ Vanguard 12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Nominations can allow more than 27 minutes from the time the "no sources" tag is placed on an article to the time of opening of an AfD.
WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Seems to be a random property. I've found stuff like ~~this, but that's all I found, really. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep a quick search returns reference in National media [24], a book about the station from 1987 Grant, A. R., (Arthur Russell); Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1987), Pastoral land survey of the Hale plain : The Garden Station, Soil and Land Resources Unit, Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, retrieved 7 October 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Add to that all mention fact that part of the station was excised to create the Trephina Gorge site of Arrernte people rock art, to me this looks very much like a notable topic. Unlike mayor Australian cities and some east caost country towns references to NT subjects arent going to be digital. Gnan garra 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note for closing admin the Station should be at
The Gardens (Pastoral Station) as an errant s Gnan garra 14:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - it used to be part of Undoolya station which was the first legal cattle station on the NT. It's very historic in terms of the development of the NT. Just give us a chance to keep working on the page. NT pages take longer to build. Not many online resources! User:tenniscourtisland User_talk:tennuscourtisland 08:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was sourced a day after it was created. Additional sourcing has been provided by Gnangarra. Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep self evident from sources, notable and sourced easily JarrahTree 13:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced now, was too quickly nominated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The addition of sources that I didn't have access to makes it clear this is notable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources indicated above. Speedy tagging within 13 minutes of article creation is not helpful and only serves as
WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious and rubbish hoax Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divrock Szczęsny

Divrock Szczęsny (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 references, and looking up the name comes up with almost nothing on the person besides this article. [
talktome⁄ _ididit] 05:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Very poorly written (To the point of me laughing) and fails notability (also found nothing on him) This is really funny though, I need to copy this onto my sandbox.layla 14:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs)

Delete Can't find any refs. Agathoclea (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete If it hadn't already had an AFD entry, I would have db-hoaxed it. Katharineamy (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total lack of sources needs to lead to deletion, especially for an article on someone in the 20th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete,
WP:SPA, probably with an aussie connection - "he was sold for a slab of VB" (wikilink added by me), article makes no sense, a gsearch brings up nothing - search result, gimages nothing, Polish wiki has nothing, German wiki has nothing. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant hoax, needs to be deleted ASAP Spiderone 13:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. company spam Jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FutureChem

FutureChem (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 to promote the company. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 04:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Lovano

Elmo Lovano (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)

notable musician. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is mostly listings and reposts of his promotional bio or about Jammcard. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He did a lot of work with a lot of other bands and artists, but nothing indicated he is notable as independent musician who warrants an own Wikipedia article. As independent person he never did anything substantial which would make him notable according to our guidelines at WP:NMUSIC or WP:PEOPLE. He is also not notable for his entrepreneurial endeavors, his start-up is a non notable social network with few reception and would also be not notable for a WP article. The lack of RS on him let him fail WP:GNG directly. There a few passing mentions of his name in listing and articles which deal with the bands he worked with or his start-up. All of them are in very low impact sources or non RS. The rest are a few interviews in non-RS blogs and business cards/profiles on webpages. There is nothing which would satisfy a significant coverage in independent RS. Currently the article just acts as promotion for him. Therefore I think the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Amato (executive)

John Amato (executive) (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)

bombarded with sources but most are not about him. Those that are about him are not independent. There are passing mentions or quotes or similar. Some don't even mention him. He lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom he's done a lot, but I can't find anything actually about him either - David Gerard (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 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 David Nutt. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcosynth

Alcosynth (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 pubmed indexed reviews. No links from FDA or NIH. Content is simply not supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to the person's article which also looks like it needs clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally created that as a redirect to David Nutt, as it seems to be his "friendly name" for some vaguely-defined category of recreational drugs. It was later turned into an article by Magnolia677 (and I just notified that editor of this discussion). Nutt is certainly well known, and "alcosynth" was been widely discussed in recent "reliable" mainstream publications (but not necessarily medical publications). I suppose it is not too surprising that it is not discussed by FDA and NIH, for a few reasons: 1) It seems to be a kind of a concept name for a category of psychoactive substances, rather than being the name of one very specific drug; 2) It seems to be designed as something intended for recreational use – not a medication intended to treat any disease; 3) It probably hasn't been approved for use by any medical institution and probably also hasn't been explicitly prohibited either (perhaps because it is only loosely defined). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My understanding of
WP:SIGCOV
is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Google brings back 65,500 links to alcosynth, and every major news organization around the world has covered it in detail:

CBC

The Independent

Le Express

Huffington Post

MSN

CNN

Australian Journal of Pharmacy

I could not imagine how this article would not pass
WP:SIGCOV, which alone is criteria enough for article retention. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Anything indepedent of Nutt himself? All I am seeing is popular press of which the "Australian Journal of Pharmacy" as it is not actually a medical journal just trying to sound like one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently yes: in this interview with the CBC , Mark Haden, an Adjunct Professor at the UBC School of Population and Public Health focusing on drug policy research, indicates that there is previous (informal?) human research and soon-to-be-published preclinical toxicology data, and says he is "certainly interested in trying to find the researchers who might be willing to take a look at it and see what it actually does." The transcript calls the substance "AI," but from listening to the audio and from a search around it appears to be MEAI, for which there is prior art in Nutt's patent including this rodent study.Perhaps the two pages could be merged? Mikalra (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus ~~fucking~~ christ. Go write about this on erowid or some other place that accepts ~~bullshit~~
WP:BULLSHIT. We don't. As Harmon says "Well, there isn't any research on anything yet." Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jytdog: - No need to be a potty mouth, and "Christ" has a capital. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Telegraph, "alcosynth" is a benzo derivative and is different from the "chaperone" drug and they are meant to do different things - the alcosynth is meant to give you a safe buzz and the chaperone is meant to give a bit of buzz and make you not want alcohol.^{WP:BULLSHIT
and hype and sloppiness and there is little to nothing WP can or should say about any of this.}

References

^ Burn-Callander, Rebecca; Cormier, Zoe (22 January 2015). "Get drunk without a hangover on synthetic booze". The Telegraph.

^ Michael Slezak (31 December 2014). "High and dry? Party drug could target excess drinking". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt ((although protected redirect to David Nutt will do)- notability is based on reliable sources;. reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information are described in MEDRS and for everything else in RS.

There are no MEDRS sources for this. As Nutt is British I also checked the NHS - nothing. Ditto NICE - nothing. As Doc James said, nothing in Pubmed. Broadening, even google scholar has only two things, neither meaningful.

Further, it is not even clear what "Alcosynth" is - what is the chemical formula? Does it actually exist or is this talk?

Every single "fact" offered about this is just "he said" malarky. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer, for pete's sake -our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge (see
WP:FRINGE
as there is nothing sensible to say about it, as Nutt has published nothing.

Appears to be
WP:BULLSHIT
.

Of course the popular press is going to go gaga over "hangover free alcohol", especially coming from someone like Nutt. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (amend to agree to redirect Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Magnolia. MEDRS is not any standard by which notability is measured. MEDRS is a guideline on what is and is not reliable information for medical claims. An article could be completely made up bullshit with zero redeeming medical or health application, but as long as it passes WP:V and the GNG, it can have an article. Likewise 'popular press' is not a reason to exclude material (if it was, Wikipedia would probably be under a million articles). As long as the subject has been covered in reliable secondary sources, its a valid subject for an article. Keep or merge to Nutt, as the argument that it is too-soon is somewhat valid - as early coverage on something that is clearly still being worked on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death does duty end ack. Yes, what matters are reliable sources; there are no reliable sources about what Alcosyn is, or what it does, etc. I don't understand your position here. What can we actually say about Alcosyn other than citing reports of what Nutt has said about it? (which is what is in the article now, and is silly). Also, GNG = multiple independent sources about X. There are zero. I would accept there being something in the David Nutt article where "he said he created "alcosyn" but that's it. Am really committed to this article not existing - at least not now. (can you tell) (btw contrast this with Morgellons where there is no medical information about it (except to say that it doesn't exist) - the whole article is Society and Culture. But we can't even do that here) Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the sources Magnolia has posted above are reliable to state Alcosynth has made some (so far as I can see, unproven) claims by Nutt/Alcosynth. The claims may/may not be true. But they have been covered by reliable secondary sources which is all thats required. MEDRS is not required to fulfil notability. Article existance is on notability and verifibility only. Not on truth. MEDRS seeks to address the Truth due to the innate harm of unreliable sources and potential harm in the medical area, but it still does not supersede WP:V. If you are seriously arguing that MEDRS is required to demonstrate notability, expect to be slapped down. (And I think you know me well enough that I am waaaayyy over on your side of the debate on pseudo/fringe etc) The independant, MSN and le Express sources are really all thats required. Regardless of the underlying product being unproven medically. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expect sloppy ~~bullshit~~
WP:BULLSHIT to be treated as such. This article is indeed going to be kicked to the curb for the garbage it is. And it is really a shame you don't understand that N depends on reliable sources, and that reliability is defined by two guidelines in WP, depending on the content. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

redirect to David Nutt, general press coverage of this is pretty much him talking about it - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nutt, per David Gerard, though I would not object to Keep given coverage in sources we consider reliable for notability. My low opinion of the topic (as a physician-scientist) really isn't germane - it's not a question of efficacy - snake oil can be notable. — soupvector (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per nominator's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news sources make it clear that this is simply hearsay from Nute "The Imperial College Professor and former government drugs advisor told The Independent he has patented around 90 different alcosynth compounds. Two of them are now being rigorously tested for widespread use, he said"

And adding reliable sources not about the subject in question does not support the notability of the topic in question. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator - Somehow this conversation has strayed into chemical formulas, and the deletion nomination was unfortunately listed as a medical subject, which it isn't. This article is about a hopefully soon-to-be-unleashed synthetic drug that can get you drunk without leaving you hungover. And yes, the only support for the existence of this awesome substance comes from its inventor. Like snake oil, alcosynth may or may not work as promised. We'll have to wait and see, but that people are talking about it a lot, and that reputable media are reporting about it a lot, is undeniable.

We've all agreed on a few basic rules here at Wikipedia, and
WP:N, this topic is without question worthy of a stand-alone article (just like Justin Bieber
).

I would have expected a deletion nomination to cite
WP:NOTNEWS
, but there are thousands of articles about alcosynth, probably because Nutt is a respected researcher. And the 311 readers who come to this article in the past 24 hours don't want to read about Nutt (a merge of this article to his). They want to read about a cocktail that gets them drunk without puking at the end of the night.

Neil Armstrong insisted for years that when he got to the bottom of the ladder he actually said "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", but that static had obscured the "a". How do I know it's true? He was the only one there. But Armstong isn't a liar, so we believe it. And Wikipedia writes about it. I believe Nutt.

The article certainly doesn't follow Wiki's medical or pharmacological style, but it doesn't have to, nor is it a reason for deletion. The article is well sourced, and people are reading it. Leave it alone. It will grow. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing WP can say about "a cocktail that gets them drunk without puking at the end of the night" that is not unsubstantiated speculative ~~bullshit~~
WP:SOAPBOX, is it a vehicle for Nutt's promotion of his venture (his column in the Guardian was basically "fund me" - read it with that in mind; it is transparent). Nutt is just doing what many entrepreneurs do (namely, pitching relentlessly) - he just happens to be already somewhat famous for his views on drug regulation and the Lancet alcohol paper, so people pay more attention. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

i cleaned the worst of the
WP:COATRACKed health claims out of the article - had to leave the basic coatracked health claims or we would not have anything.... Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

@Jytdog: - Your edit appears vexatious, ravaging the article just four minutes after I left a message on your talk page warning you to stop using foul language. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not pointy. The content I removed violated
WP:NOT in several ways. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

redirect to David Nutt per above until there is substantial enough content to merit a separate article. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yesterday, an editor deleted nearly the entire article, and was prepared to edit war over it. This certainly seems to violate the spirit of
WP:EDITATAFD, which states that you "must not blank" an article undergoing AfD. Now, as expected, new comments on this AfD are stating there is not "enough content to merit a separate article". I'm concerned that the fairness of this AfD has been tainted by this editor's actions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

You keep doing anything but responding to the content problems that have been raised here. There is a solid consensus to redirect. If you want to move that consensus in a different direction you would do better to focus on the content issues. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems extremely clear cut to me: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. This is deeply unimpressive behaviour, and the sort of thing that would get most editors a block, if not an indef one.

As to the article, then WP:N applies to this AfD, rather than MEDRS. It's unlikely that those outside the UK will be familiar with David Nutt, but he is a major figure around government policy, either as one of the establishment creating it, or later as an excluded gadfly criticising it. Either way, his views carry a good deal of weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As this stuff appears to be a one man show do you not think it makes sense to merge and redirect to him? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable outcome, but I think there is sufficient independent notability to support an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sure if WP were a gossip magazine where people can post speculations about things that don't exist and act as a bullhorn for people's use of media to try to raise money for new projects. But it isn't per
WP:PROMO. No one has addressed these policy issues who has supported keeping the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
"a gossip magazine" ? Are you seriously equating this with the Kardassians and the like? Please stick to a basis of relevant WP policy, not simply abusing and belittling other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you actually read it, it is all "Nutt says X" or "Y says Z about what Nutt said." There is no accepted knowledge conveyed, because there is none. In fact we can say more about Kim Kardashian's butt than we can about "alcosynth" because her butt actually exists. (here are many pictures - none on the commons unfortunately). Please show me the structure of Alcoynth, or published data on what it does. Please. What you will find if you actually read the article and its sources, is that "Alcosynth" is all hype and gossip, and again, what we have is Nutt giving interviews and writing editorials to try to raise money - read his editorial. Science-y gossip, sure... but gossip. Not what we do here. One day we may be able to write an article on this. Not today. None of the arguments to !keep have a leg to stand on, in the face of the
WP:NOT problems here and the lack of reliable sources that are actually about "alcosynth" and not about what Nutt says about this putative substance. SGOSSIP, PROMO, CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

David Nutt being a major figure around government policy is an excellent reason to have an article on David Nutt, but not a very good reason to have an article about how David Nutt announced he's working on a recreational miracle drug and he promises it'll be really great in the distant future when it exists. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Nutt. As it currently stands, not enough information exists to expand this page beyond a stub, so it makes sense to merge it into Nutt's page. Over time, the topic may gain enough notability (and available, verifiable information) to move back to its own page, but in the current situation it just doesn't make sense to have a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneftel (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:CRYSTAL. No sufficient information outside of claims by Nutt & speculation about potential uses of such substance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 22 October 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
WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by After Midnight (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations (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)

"Attack page" is the rationale Zigzig20s gave for speedy deletion here. This is procedural as the speedy deletion has been declined, and please note that I don't advocate for either this article's deletion or its retainment. epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this article using
WP:BLP. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I advocate to keep this page due to the numerous allegations over decades that can be properly cited and sourced, and agree with User:aqwfyj. WClarke (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Attack page and character assassination based on unprovable allegations in the midst of a campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a failure to understand certain basic Wikipedia editing principles; e.g. it is irrelevant whether the allegations are provable; what matters is that there appears to be adequate RS coverage of the material. I haven't read the whole thing so I don't know whether it needs more attribution, etc, but that has nothing to do with a keep/delete decision. Allegations of attack page need to be accompanied by evidence, and I have seen none presented—despite repeated such allegations by one editor regarding this article and at least one other article that reflects unfavorably on Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and possibly semi-protect. Everyone please re-familiarise yourselves with
WP:BLP) before voting. There are some definite misunderstandings here. De Guerre (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Although now that I think of it, I'd be happy to merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump if that page isn't too long. De Guerre (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Decent coverage and hence, notability, through reliable sources on allegations.
MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. One of the issues with this article is that it might be accused of "improper synthesis". However, media sources are now analysing these allegations in the round not just in isolation. See for example this from Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/12/trump_sexual_assault_allegations_the_floodgates_are_open.html. There's similar coverage in many mainstream news sources in the past day. I am neutral on whether to cover this individually or in the legal article, but an article covering all his legal issues along with the sexual assault allegations would probably be too long and would need to be split. Fences&Windows 09:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – widely reported coverage in national and international news media, including right, left and centre leaning media outlets. Of extreme notability, reliable citations are being used from an array of sources. Described are not just accusations of notability, but actual past and pending court cases relating to alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the subject Donald Trump.
Al-Andalus (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - as per above. 124.106.143.211 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)— 124.106.143.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, as per aqwfyj and Mandruss. Reliable sources are used, and the article is either balanced or well on its way. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by all means, in this contentious and often fact-free election cycle, the public needs a resource which is fact-checked, verifiable and balanced. User aqwfyj has provided this valuable service. To delete it (and Bill Clinton's parallel article) would be naked political aggression.Rcarlberg (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question to any AFD-patrolling administrators, or really anyone who can answer this: As the AFD nominator who nominated purely procedurally (so my nomination was not an automatic !vote for deletion), can I !vote in this too? epicgenius (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's a good way to do it-dispassionate nom followed up after some time with a !vote. -Pete (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's well-cited Victor Grigas (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Impeccably cited and quite likely the key to the collapse of a presidential campaign. Nominator has expressed no valid rationale for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Impossible to justify removal. Interesting, important, and well-cited; losing this to some misinterpretation of a policy would be fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.—chbarts (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous arguments above - KConWiki (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous arguments above - 00ff00 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - the article is just following the sources, very reliable sources. Deleting this would look very much like censorship. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per precedents (the Bills: Clinton, Cosby), and because reliable sources can be found. (Note, I am the nominator, but I nominated this neutrally). epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is being built up and referenced properly. JJARichardson (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider re-naming since the title implies that Trump is accused of having sex, whereas I think he's accused of something a bit less than that, like "misconduct toward women" or "unwanted touching" or whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would have waited a few days. But, the story is obviously going to last, the coverage is widespread, and who am I to argue with a melting snowball? Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs quite a lot of work, and ideally it should have appeared a little further into the news cycle, but there's plenty of coverage and several allegations that would make this notable. This is Paul (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close It's clear that these allegations are as notable as the Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby allegations. There is too much content to merge anywhere, as it is sufficient for its own page. It does need work to make sure it doesn't fall victim to
WP:RECENTISM issues, but should not be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment (already !voted above) with the totally one-sided !vote (21-1), and the declaration of the nominator that he is for "keep" it really is time to close this as "snowball keep". The templates at the top of the article page tend to place the article in a no-man's land for the reader "is this a real article or not?" It definitely is a real article and removing the templates at the top of the article page would show that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would self-withdraw if I could, but as per
WP:CLOSEAFD, if there's even a single oppose vote, I can't do that. Some uninvolved admin should please SNOW-close this AFD, which is leaning toward keep. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: because there are now too many claims for any 1 person to keep tracking of all the claims against Trump. I strongly feel that only a wikipedia list/post can do full justice to this topic and this is also of huge current interest till the elections get over. J mareeswaran (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you believe the "attacks" are unjustified, take that up with the editorial control of the numerous reliable sources covering this. We report what the sources say. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tour of the Moon

Tour of the Moon (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
local area. This is not a sporting event. Participants pay to be on this social ride. It has no direct connection to previous sporting contests that have run on the same course. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG as there is nothing in-depth outside of a few local pieces. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails notability criteria at WikiProject Cycling, with no apparent reason for exception. Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 19 October 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.
Soft delete. Sam Walton (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Kaya Matsutani

Kaya Matsutani (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)

ANN search results:
1) Orihime Mitsuishi (Aikatsu - main)
2) Rangiku Matsumoto (Bleach - main supporting)
3) Nio Ando (Captain Earth - supporting)
4) Grand Cleric (Dragon Age: Dawn of the Seeker - main supporting)
5) Pretty Cure (The Queen - supporting)

Subject lacks enough major roles to warrant her own article. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Also add Diana Caprice, main role for the Sakura Wars New York games and related anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but even then, that's only two lead roles. You could perceive Rangiku as a major supporting role in a long running series, but I do not think the subject in question has garnered enough major roles to assert her notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Hassebrook

Chuck Hassebrook (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.
WP:GNG for it, but nothing here entitles him to an article that rests almost exclusively on primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability as an unsuccessful political candidate. Meatsgains (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete candidates for governor are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Latsos

Melinda Latsos (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)

Actress who fails the subject specific
WP:N. Jim Carter 15:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 9 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of meeting any criteria of WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.
WP:NOQUORUM Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Takaya Hashi

Takaya Hashi (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)

No relevant sources found in the article OR via Google search. Subject is not clearly acclaimed for anything in particular. No news coverage found, either. I believe the subject is non-notable. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toki in FOTNS is a significant role, 49 episodes. Nothing else jumps out at a glance yet.SephyTheThird (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One significant role does not equate to notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did, I'm posting information that is useful for the discussion, it isn't attached to a opinion on notability. At least not yet.SephyTheThird (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guillem is a main character role in Outlaw Star; he's the ship's computer. Other roles not so much. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toki (Group 2) is part of the supporting cast; and so is Gilliam (Outlaw Star, Group 2). --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 6 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Magna Carta College

Magna Carta College (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 credible evidence that such an organization actually existed. All there seems to be is a dead web domain and one entry in a Home Office report that the organization was trusted with foreign students. Mootros (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this page which said (in 2010) "The University of Wales is pleased to congratulate one of its collaborative centres, The Magna Carta College (MCC), on having held its first ever graduation ceremony... The University of Wales has been validating the MCC’s MBA scheme since 2007". AllyD (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks like it is now defunct but I think there is enough evidence that it was a legitimate college accredited by University of Wales. GeneralBelly (talk) 19:40, 6 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close (I am the nominator). The case has been made in comment above. The now defunct institution did exist for some time and some people graduated. Mootros (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per nominator withdrawing the nom, and per other comment above. Lourdes 00:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto: The World. 21st Century

Manifesto: The World. 21st Century (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 about a phrase in a speech. The author of the speech and the circumstances of its delivery are notable subjects but this speech could be mentioned within either of those articles. There's nothing extra to say about it to justify a standalone article. Witty lama 11:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wittylama. Your suggestion that this is a phrase is incorrect. This Page title is the title of a policy framework that has been endorsed by nuclear nonproliferation organizations such as the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament^[1] and Unfold Zero^[2] and the United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.^[3] It is a well established plan recognized by several nations and the United Nations.^[4] I hope this helps to clarify this is more than a phrase. It is a policy framework that has acheived worldwide recognition and will be built upon in the years ahead. This Page should not be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeyes678 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Building a nuclear-weapon-free world". PNND.

^ "Astana Declaration – From a Radioactive Haze to a Nuclear-Weapon Free World". Unfold Zero.

^ "CTED CONDUCTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT VISIT TO KAZAKHSTAN". United Nations.

^ "Jordan, Kazakhstan share vision of world peace'". The Jordan Times.

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:37, 6 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's contents, as in its one sentence, already exists at: Nuclear Security Summit#NSS 2016. There is coverage but only mentions of the speech interspersed in larger coverage about the summit, and not really focusing on the speech itself. I thought about voting for redirect, but the mention is only at the general article for Nuclear Security Summit and not the 2016 one. The redirect should be to the 2016 if any. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Mr. Magoo has this right.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Tot Watchers

Tot Watchers (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 a plot summary with no sources and external links.
talk) 11:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any Tom and Jerry cartoon meets
WP:BEFORE should have been applied here. MarnetteD|Talk 05:35, 9 October 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, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last of the classic T&J shorts. Can be improved and really should be, but I tend to agree with MarnetteD. Crow^Caw 23:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd is not about sourcing within the article, but about credible notability (which can be ascertained by a primary search). The nomination statement of being "entirely a plot summary with no sources and external links" can work in a prod but perhaps not in an Afd. Clearly a notable subject. Interested editors should source up the article though. Lourdes 00:52, 21 October 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dremo

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

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

Does not meet notability criteria. I strongly suspect the article creator,
conflict of interest
as he/she has primarily contributed promotional articles about Nigerian musical artists, including this article as well as:

Korrekt (musician) (already deleted)

Black Magic (musician) (deletion nomination)

DJ Kaywise (deletion nomination)

The fact that all these articles have professional-grade photos with a claim to self-authorship is also very strong evidence of undeclared COI. Citobun (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per reason on this AfD. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment editors should also be aware that the article creator has been temporarily blocked for a
talk) 11:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mainly advertorial, cited sources are mostly videos. Fails WP:NMEDIA as sources lack sufficient depth. And the aforementioned WP:COI issues.ronaz ^Talk! 10:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same here fail WP:MUSICBIO.--Historical Ben (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ia that a speedy delete G7? Blocked sock of creator, struck comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam from sock of blocked editor. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Manhattan Co.

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
talk
) 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - should have done
talk) 21:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 21:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Motykie

Gary Motykie (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)

An unsourced BLP and a
WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable plastic surgeon. What comes up is from tabloid-like sources link, plus self promotion. Created by Special:Contributions/Paullonsford with few other contributions. The subject appeared in a few shows, but this does not overcome lack of independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG. NYT has one hit (where he says useful things about the bad things that happen due to Oprah hyping
Thermage); nothing at WSJ; nothing at LA Times; did a google search found lots of trashy stuff like his TMZ profile and this write up in a Plastic Surgery Practice trade rag. Pubmed search are mostly things he seems to have published as a resident. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Alhough there are many mentions in
WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "featured in" as used in this promotional article (and similar articles) does not actually bmean was a mjor figure in a show, but rather is deceptive PR jargon for "appeared in one or more times" Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the material seems to have been put in the article to promote the person than to provide encyclopedic knowledge. Add to that the lack of sources in a significant portion of the article. The subject has written or co-authored many papers and is possible qualifying on
WP:AUTHOR as he is widely cited by his peers. But someone would have to possibly source all these citations and place them in the article in an appropriate manner to make a good case. Lourdes 00:44, 21 October 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_October_13&oldid=1142620914"

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22harvey+tyson%22#q=%22harvey+tyson%22+-Pennsylvania&tbm=bks&start=10

[2] Burn-Callander, Rebecca; Cormier, Zoe (22 January 2015). "Get drunk without a hangover on synthetic booze". The Telegraph.

[3] Michael Slezak (31 December 2014). "High and dry? Party drug could target excess drinking". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[pnnd-4] "Building a nuclear-weapon-free world". PNND.

[unfoldzero-5] "Astana Declaration – From a Radioactive Haze to a Nuclear-Weapon Free World". Unfold Zero.

[CTED-6] "CTED CONDUCTS COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT VISIT TO KAZAKHSTAN". United Nations.

[jordanmanifesto-7] "Jordan, Kazakhstan share vision of world peace'". The Jordan Times.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]