Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

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 redirect to Black Lives Matter#"White Lives Matter". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White Lives Matter

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

Contested(??????) PROD. Notability has been questioned. Procedural nomination. Adam9007 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Lives Matter#"White Lives Matter". What the nominator means is that the article was prodded, and the article creator removed the prod. Someone then prodded it again, and Adam9007 removed the second prod, correctly pointing out that it had already been prodded. The article creator edit warred to maintain the invalid prod, edit warred to remove a speedy deletion tag, and finally edit warred to remove the AfD tag. Unsurprisingly, the article creator is currently blocked. Anyway, this is already summarized at Black Lives Matter#"White Lives Matter". There's quite a bit of coverage on Google News, but it's generally in the context of Black Lives Matter. For example: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I have a feeling this will eventually be spun off into its own article, but it's not necessary yet. Let's wait until the topic becomes unwieldy in the parent article. The BLM article is only around 43K (7000 words) of prose text, which means it could be expanded a bit more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the original nominator. Initially, the article was sourced to a blog entry which did not actually use the phrase. Now it is sourced to two articles from the media, one of which does not use the phrase, and the other in fact says the opposite of what the Wikipedia article says: the article posits 'Blacks Lives Matter' as a hate group, while the reference calls 'White Lives Matter' a hate group! - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been rewritten, but it is still shorter than the coverage of the phrase in the main Black Lives Matter article. I agree that the hate group is only notable in the context of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement; there's probably no need for a separate article at the moment. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is not much independent coverage here: the reaction to BLM can be covered, and should be covered, at that page. Vanamonde (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There's nothing that can be said here that's not already said at
WP:NOPAGE). clpo13_(talk) 15:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Significant international coverage in New York Times, USA Today, Russia Today, NBC News... Might have been good to check
WP:BEFORE nominating or commenting. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Opining to keep, because the topic passes
available sources, some of which includes, but is not limited to: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Obviously is notable due to rs coverage. I wish there was some kind of policy on sole sentence articles though. Yes it's notable, but will the reader, the customer in this context, learn anything from reading this oneliner? I don't think so. ronaz ^Talk! 12:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)I don't think this is independently notable of BLM. What's more,[reply]
Redirect (or merge but there's nothing to merge.) I understand and respect the reasoning North America and Ronaz elaborate in their keep votes but I don't think this is so obviously notable. All the coverage is in relationship to BLM (so, not independently notable) and moreover, it's all from just a couple days of press, so it doesn't qualify as
sustained coverage. Knowing the SPLC is taking it seriously is some indication we may see more coverage in the future--but also maybe not. They've tracked many groups the media hasn't bothered to cover. Now, SPLC updates going forward + this initial burst of press could eventually flesh out an article but we're not there yet. AfD redirect is well in line with existing practice; and a revisiting if there's more sourcing in the future would be too. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect. I understand where the "Keep" votes are coming from, but WLM is really only of interest in the context of BLM. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaine Felix

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

Subject fails

WP:GNG is met. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

comment League 2 is a proffesional league, this is just a poorly made article and is also poorly linked JohnTombs48 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The player has never competed in
  Football League Two. The highest division he has played in is the National League, which is semi-pro. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete - player fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Not sure why JohnTombs48 thinks the player has played in League Two, he definitely hasn't.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Freeway and Expressway System

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

Apparently copied from/inspired by California's similar system. This is likely a hoax, as such a legally designated system doesn't exist in Arizona. -happy 5214 23:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not copied from California Freeway and Expressway System. All States have similar Highway Systems. All Highways in this page exist unless otherwise described as (Former). Also Note the source ^[1] is an official Arizona State Document describing the System, its roads and plans. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/2013shslog.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Right, but the California freeway/expressway system is a subset of the full California highway system that is legally defined as a separate subsystem. No one's disputing that Arizona has a state highway system—it is described at List of state routes in Arizona—but Arizona doesn't appear to have defined particular segments of routes as expressways. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

*~~Speedy Delete~~—this article is either a hoax or a very misinformed effort. At the minimum, this article directly copies text from the California article, but omits references to the specific sections of the legal code and then does a "find all, change all" type of edit to switch every reference to California to Arizona, including linking to the non-existent

Portal:California Roads. Also, California has a Streets and Highways Code in their legal statutes, and it defines a specific system of freeways and expressways. Arizona does not legislatively define things like that, nor do they specifically define a system of freeways and expressways. The source proffered above applies to the overall state highway system and does not define an entity in the state of Arizona called the "Freeway and Expressway System". Also at a minimum, this is an inappropriate copy of text from one article to another without proper attribution. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

It is neither as I've explained in the other talk pages you claim it is Hoax yet I have disproved this accusation over and over again. If you claim it is a misinformed effort how is it misinformed? What makes it misinformed? And as I've explained before I did not copy anything from the “California Article”. Just because an article looks similar does not mean it is a copy.
Yes California State Law has a Streets and Highways Code in there Legal Statute. Arizona has there Streets and Highways Code in title 28 which is referenced and feel free to read it. The State of Arizona defines and in there state wide transportation plan (which is in title 28) “Highways” ”Freeways” and “Expressways” under there State Route System and Interstate System that runs throughout the State. If you claim that the title of an article has to be an official name defined by state law I'd like to see that in the wikipedia rules. The demand you seem to be making is that the title of the article needs to be changed. Nothing within the article is wrong. The only compliant you make is “Arizona Freeway and Expressway System”. Which Arizona has a Freeway and Expressway system. Whether the state specifically defines it as that or not. You cannot deny Arizona has Freeways and Expressways and that it is under the State Route System and Interstate System. If it cannot be “Arizona Freeway and Expressway System” than what should it be? Wouldnt a simple rename be appropriate, not a take down? I guess it could be Arizona State Route Transportation System? What name do you deem appropriate? LuckyLag360 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very simple matter. Arizona has freeways and expressways that are a part of the official state highway system, and we do not deny that. However, that does not mean there is a "Freeway and Expressway System".
The California Legislature has a separate set of state laws called the Streets and Highways Code, and it is separate from the other 28 California Codes. The legislature in the Grand Canyon State has codified all of their laws into a single code called the Arizona Revised Statutes, and Title 28 is just one part of it, but it is not a "Streets and Highways Code" by name.
Title 28 does not create a separate entity called the "Freeway and Expressway System". The S&HC in California does though. So even though Arizona has freeways and expressways, it does not have a Freeway and Expressway System. Because one doesn't exist, we should not have an article on it. We can cover the concept that some of the various highways are freeway- or expressway-grade within a larger article on the system, just as has been done at Michigan State Trunkline Highway System.
Lastly, your insistence that you didn't copy California Freeway and Expressway System to create this article rings very hollow. As I demonstrated on the talk page, whole paragraphs match word for word except where you changed the name of the state and dropped "sections 250-257" from the text. The sooner you stop denying that the sooner people might take your other comments more seriously. Imzadi 1979 → 07:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. There is a "Arizona freeway and expressway system" (as part of the state highway system), but there is no "Arizona Freeway and Expressway System" (a legally defined entity). --Rs chen 7754 06:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good I'm glad you admit that. As Rschen7754 said there is a "Arizona freeway and expressway system" (as part of the state highway system), but there is no "Arizona Freeway and Expressway System" (a legally defined entity). I agree 100% with him. I never claimed there was legally defined Entity. It is simply the title as that is the best title to fit the article unless you can come up with something better? As I asked above what Page title would you deem appropriate? Because this one seems to make you think I am making some sort of Hoax.

You're the only one insisting I copied that wikipedia article. Whether you think I did or not is irrevelent as the page looks nothing like the one you say I copied and the information is accurate. If you feel information is not accurate edit it and fix any mistakes you find. Source it and move on. Dont claim I hoax an article and than try and get it deleted just because the title does not represent the States Legal Definitions.

Really I think you took my hole article out of context. Please go back and read it and if you feel somethings wrong with it edit it. Please give constructive criticism to specific parts and reword things if its not correct. Thats all I ask. LuckyLag360 (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the six sentences of text in the original article, five matched the other article word for word; the sixth contain non-standard grammar and capitalization that matches your writing style on the talk pages, also giving away the fact that you did not write the majority of the text in the article. Continuing to deny those facts removes any credibility you may have. Frankly, a few sentences of text on the concept that some Arizona highways are built to freeway specifications (Title 28 does not have a definition for expressway in the state) can be included in List of state routes in Arizona, meaning there is no need to have a separate article on this topic at all, let alone one that implies there is a legally defined system of freeways and expressways in the state. Since Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again whether you believe I copied it is irreverent given its a separate article, with its own content and its own sources. At this point I could care less what you think I did or didnt do. If you read carefully in the article it clearly states The Arizona Freeway and Expressway System (as part of the state highway system). It clearly states it is a part of the State Highway System not its own legally defined system as "Freeway and Expressway". The article you claim makes this irreverent only covers state highways. It lacks information on Interstates and Other Expressways, Parkways, Loops and anything else that qualifies as a Freeway or Expressway under such definition. Again there is no implication or intent to make a reader think that this is a separate system. Therefore it is not a hoax.LuckyLag360 (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By submitting this article, you are implying that this Arizona Freeway and Expressway System is a notable concept. It is not. It is no more notable than an article called Arizona State Highways That Go Through Cities Of More Than 1,000 People. --Rs chen 7754 13:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—this article started as a nearly word-for-word duplicate of the wrong template, California Freeway and Expressway System. Since the creator now admits that such a legally defined system does not exist in Arizona, at best the capitalization on the current title is wrong. Once we scrub the text that implies a coordinated system from the article, we're down to an article that acts only to list the freeways in a state. As a topic, that's not something rises to the level of notability for a separate article.
No matter what, we should create Category:Freeways in Arizona as a subcategory of Category:Freeways in the United States and tag all of the non-Interstate Highway articles with that category. Then we can put Category:Interstate Highways in Arizona and Category:Freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area in that category as the next level down. Voilà, all of the freeways in the state are listed together in the category tree. Imzadi 1979 → 08:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Same reasons above. Cards84664 (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Imzadi. Plus, I have doubts about the accuracy of the list (such as whether some of the roads listed would qualify as "expressway"). -- LJ ↗ 02:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --
WP:LISTCRUFT for a non-existing entity. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Unneeded list. Categories better handle the need. Dough4872 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zelkind

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - very badly sourced, if cut to RSes this would be two sentences, neither saying much about Zelkind himself. Was PRODed, PROD removed without fixing the already tagged sourcing problems. And notability not apparent. His company may or may not, but there's not enough in sourcing to support a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment from creator:

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.
1. Vilner, Yoav (2016-01-18). "O16 London-Based Startups Ready To Take On 2016". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2016-08-02. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  The article notes:
  Zeek was Founded by Daniel Zelkind
2. "Zeek, a startup that lets you buy and sell unwanted gift vouchers, closes $9.5M Series B". TechCrunch. 2016-07-27. Archived from the original on 2016-08-27. Retrieved 2016-09-14.
  The article notes:
  Meanwhile, Zeek co-founder and CEO Daniel Zelkind tells me the startup isn’t yet profitable but implies that it could be if it chose to. “Our revenue model makes profitably a question of strategy, not time,” he says. “With current scales, Zeek can become profitable today but we are planning to invest heavily in our technology, marketing and generally speaking hyper growth”.To that end, I understand that Zeek has been experimenting with television advertising, which Zelkind says performed “incredibly well” both in terms of user acquisition and building trust.
3. "UK sees $1.4B in unused gift vouchers each year". CNBC. 2015-12-24. Archived from the original on 2016-06-01. Retrieved 2016-08-23.
  The interview by CNBC inticates significant coverage reliable sources
There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Daniel Zelkind to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Ymd2004 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

- Do you have any sources actually about Zelkind? Remember, a BLP must have good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any coverage is about Zeek, and Zelkind himself gets only brief passing mentions. Fails
WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The one thing that might have some hope is the award, but since we only have the award sourced to a press release on the award, and nothing showing any 3rd party sources noted it at all, there is no indication Zelkind passes the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Zeek, the company Daniel Zelkind founded. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources about Daniel Zelkind to establish notability, but a redirect of his article to the article of the company he founded makes sense. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what is stated is that he's best and solely known for the company itself; any such available information is imaginably going to be connected to the company of course, therefore there's still nothing actually convincing for his own confirmed convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Zeek. Easily mergeable content; valid search term for a redirect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As per above, I don't think a redirect is necessary since nobody will be searching for Daniel Zelkind off the bat.ronaz ^Talk! 12:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xanitizer

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

The article was speedy deleted in a previous discussion, however this COI editor (whose only edits have been to promote this software and vote against its deletion) has been particularly determined and recreated it. Needless to say, a quick search reveals that there has been no blitz of media coverage in the few months between its deletion and recreation, and so I am nominating for deletion again as a non-notable piece of software. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two sources cited are questionable and Xanitizer's mentions are brief and categorical. The third reference is commercial and promotional. Fails
WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 03:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and salt per above - David Gerard (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The re-creation of the article wasn't in a bad intention, but last time comment was that the article could be recreated if there are other sources. I'm sorry to hear that the cited sources are not enough. I'm still thinking that the article is not promotional, it just informs that the tool exists. And it is a little bit of a hen and egg problem - how to get more sources if nobody knows about the tool? I checked some of the other tools on the List of tools for static code analysis and most of them do not differ from this article. In fact, tools like JArchitect have no references at all. It is a little bit frustrating, especially since Xanitizer is a free to use tool, that could not simply "sponsor" some articles that can be used as references. So I beg to keep the article and give it some time. I will add other sources as soon as they are available. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWenzel (talk • contribs) 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: NWenzel (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Please read
WP:RS, for a start - David Gerard (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I would also vote for keeping this article as long as other tools without references can stay, e.g. JArchitect.Azitzewitz (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and annul bids to keep The author of the article, who is a WP:SPA, and a one-day-old account with two edits are the only ones to vote "Keep". The SPA's defense is a disingenuous
WP:OSE suggesting that there are no notable sources on JArchitect (there are). There are no notable references about Xanitizer, which is now at least 6 months old, and being listed on the OWASP Wiki does not lend any weight to its importance. Jergling (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete no significant coverage.
talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under

criterion A7. Minor roles, major BLP violations. The best possible course was to jettison this article right now. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Almighty Swag

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

I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources, only social media accounts. In addition, it seems most of the article is

WP:ENT and the general notability guidelines. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete With such roles as "Boy in bathroom" and "Boy in gas station" I'm sure an Oscar is soon at hand. In all seriousness, a few bit parts in B-movies does not
WP:GNG make. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Jayne Orser

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

Searches do not indicate any reason that this academic meets the notability requirements outlined at

WP:PROF. All sources listed here are publications by the subject or are affiliated with the subject and therefore fail to establish notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

She is a valid professional. Her book is approved on Wikipedia and she is an expert in her field. She meets the criteria of notability and interest. She is not, herself, an academic subject, so how would she be referenced by others? Her work is peer-reviewed and she deserves a bio on wikipedia, given that her book is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She and Catherine Elliott are responsible for all of this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is also proven here as an academic:

http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/directory/professors/orser-barbara

Also, she is noted as one of Canada's most powerful women!

http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/latest-news/470-professor-barbara-orser-named-among-canadas-most-powerful-women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

WP:GNG). Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Top 'X' lists and articles published by the university she works at do not establish notability. She exists but does not seem to be

WP:NOTABLE. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Criteria[edit source] Shortcut: WP:NACADEMIC Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

The Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa congratulates Barbara Orser, for being announced as a recipient of the prestigious 2010 Canada's Most Powerful Women: Top 100™ Awards, in the Champions category. [1]

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

She was a former Vice-Dean of the Business Faculty (Telfer) at the University of Ottawa (one of Canada's top 15 universities)

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/latest-news/470-professor-barbara-orser-named-among-canadas-most-powerful-women

Top 'X' awards are not "highly prestigious academic awards or honours" by any stretch of the definition. As for the Vice dean appointment, this does not represent a named chair, or distinguished professor appointment. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well then maybe you should be looking for all professor articles and deleting them. This one has been there for a longtime and you haven't flagged it for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Strangelove He's MUCH less notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should be less concerned with what I am or am not doing, and concentrate on the subject at hand. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You will find more information if you search under "Barbara Orser." I found some references which I added to the article. Also, she has some publications on Google Scholar. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the 'references' are articles by the subject. Two refs require login. The other two are from her employer's website: one of those states that she was a 'most powerful woman' six years ago. Web search and search tools included with this RfD turn up zilch. Refs fail
WP:NACADEMIC. Tapered (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a collection of sources by the employers of the subject and of works by the subject are not enough to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Named professorship = notability per
WP:TNT, that would seem to be that, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A named professorship meets
WP:PROF#C5, although I'm leery about it being at a business school and she doesn't appear meet any of the other criteria or the GNG. Joe Roe (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Conclusive Keep. The article may be short on refs and such, but Orser meets at least 2 of the named criteria in
WP:PROF: c1 (impact) based on h-index of 21 (see link above furnished by Megalibrarygirl, who modestly refers to these as "some publications"), which is rather high in the business world, and c5 (named chair) as the Deloitte Professor of Management. The article itself needs some cleanup (e.g. could use an infobox), but there is simply no question that Orser meets WP notability requirements. Agricola44 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Based on the information given by Agricola and Rhododendrites, I agree. When I presented the info, I was on the fence, since I'm more used to working with GNG arguments rather than PROF. As for Tapered, the references that require log ins don't invalidate them as sources. What I usually do when I can see the full source is look at where the source is coming from (is it a RS?) and read the abstract. Sometimes other Wikipedians will have access to the databases and can help you out if you ask. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to meet
WP:NPROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep and I nearly closed this myself as the nominator is both misunderstanding WP:PROF in that she has a Vice Dean position at a notable university, that by far satsfies WP:PROF; she also then satisfies WP:AUTHOR by having over a 1,000 library holdings as shown by WorldCat, certainly enough. The Delete votes (now 1) are not emphasizing this. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources are convincing that
WP:NPROF is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Religion and Film

Journal of Religion and Film (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per
WP:NJournals #1: "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article... 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources." Why was it stated that it does not meet that? Google Scholar shows that various Journal of Religion and Film articles have been cited (see "Cited by" numbers): link. Google Books also shows that this journal has been cited multiple times: link. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Here is an independent mention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Those are actually quite low citation counts, though. Only a handful of papers over 25. And it being Google Scholar, which indexes anything and everything, it's difficult to judge what proportion are legitimate scholarship. I'd appreciate some clarification on what Criterion 2 means, though. Surely if any journal cited by a notable journal was also considered notable, given the nature of academic publishing, we would soon be "virally" considering every journal notable? Does it not mean, "frequently cited by other [non-scholarly] reliable sources", as note #8 would seem to suggest? Joe Roe (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: I suppose I'm not familiar with what "Cited by" numbers should be. The topic is the intersectionality of religion and film, so can it command as strong numbers as academic journals in physical sciences? I am sure there is not much coverage about the journal to make the Wikipedia article more than a basic description, but WP:NJournals made it seem like if it has been referenced multiple places, it is probable that it is notable. Also Berkeley's curated film resources here list Journal of Religion and Film articles far from Omaha. I can try to dig a little deeper for more solid coverage; a little hard when this journal shows up as a reference in most search results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my "Keep" for now. Not finding that it meets
WP:IINFO #1: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents." While the journal has been referenced multiple times, I'm essentially not finding independent coverage especially to have the Wikipedia article be more than a recap of the journal. Would also like to grasp the cited-by/indexing criteria better as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: A search through Google Books indicates that this is the foremost journal in its subject area: [14][15][16] St Anselm (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep based on the sources above. Appears to be an important journal in the area, which is a major topic in religious studies (and I suspect, though I do not know for sure, other areas of cultural studies/the arts). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some citations to a journal are to be expected and nothing beyond what is normal. A smattering of citations, whether in other journals (GScholar) or in books (GBooks) is to be expected. If this is "an important journal", then why is it not even in Scopus (the least selective of the major selective databases)? --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpcut.com

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

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

Short lived company that went belly up in three years. Completely different company currently owns the url.
TimothyJosephWood 19:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep if we deleted every article of companies that are no longer in operation we would have nowhere near the amount of corp articles we have. It still meets
WP:GNG --Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The sources are primarily from the defunct company's old website. Ergo, since it fails
WP:N. Tapered (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete JUMPCUT.COM IS THE HOME PAGE TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY. THIS IS OUTDATED!
WP:N. crpollock (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs
)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the article on that new company using the URL was deleted as not notable, that really isn't relevant to this deletion discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean...it is somewhat in the sense that it means the company this AfD is concerned with is defunct, and so it is almost certain they will receive no additional secondary coverage, and they were not stable enough to last more than three years, meaning they were probably not notable to begin with. In contrast, even if they are not currently notable, the company the (assumed COI) editor refers to may be notable some day, and the article can be resurrected if that time comes.
TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oma Marilyn Anona

Oma Marilyn Anona (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 topic has been deleted previously under another name per this afd. No reliable independent source could be found about the subject thereby failing
WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per nom. Tried to clean it up and source but couldn't even find basic sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable.Kelvinsage1 (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - even though she's quite plausibly notable, we can't have a BLP this badly sourced - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sourcing either. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Intrinsic plasticity

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

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

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Written as a promotional essay. Phrases like "It is important to note that..." have no place in an encyclopedic article. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

What or who is the article promoting? And did you check out the Google Scholar results as I suggested when I removed the PROD tag? Or the Google Books results, the first of which is a 291-page book on the subject from a university press? I'm not going to try adding references to the article, because this is not one of my fields of expertise, but it's pretty obvious that a Wikipedia article on this topic is long overdue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first page of Google results for the term suggests this is a genuine topic of neuroscience; see here, here, and here, for starters. I don't think you have to be a neuroscientist to recognize that the current article stinks and needs a big cleanup but the subject seems entirely valid. A Train^talk 16:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on GNG and the sources discussed above. Additionally,
WP:NOTCLEANUP is starting to become a disruptive pattern. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. I'm sure that this editor's actions are not deliberately disruptive but they are objectively so. Someone needs to have a word, but I would prefer it not to be me because the reaction to being told such things by an unregistered editor tends to be to dispute my credentials rather than take note of what I say. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Synaptic plasticity - this article is completely unsourced and should not be live like this. It can be developed there and if it gets too big it can be split out.

It was already improved with references and internal links and should continue to be developed. It is clearly a topic that is different from synaptic plasticity. Please read the text before you comment. It clearly states that intrinsic plasticity (IP) is different from synaptic plasticity (SP). The term cannot be found, becasue if you want to know about IP youwon't even think of looking up SOP. There is neural plasticity, which is a term for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:86:4B21:7F01:BDAE:6F3A:E17E:7D2A (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has exactly one ref that is 11 years old for one small bit. There is no reason for this article to exist like this. It should have just been added to Synaptic plasticity; it should not have been created in main space like this, where it was entirely unsourced, and still is almost entirely unsourced. Our mission is to present accepted knowledge to readers and what we have here is what some anonymous editor wrote down out of what was in their head. Newbies do that; this is how we fix it so that readers don't get exposed to this unverified ... thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support userifying this or draftifying it; it is just not ready for mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of Wikipedia being a wiki is that articles are improved collaboratively in mainspace rather that hidden in user or draft space where nobody other than the creator will find them. As I said above I have no particular expertise is this field but I do have enough general knowledge to know what a neuron is and what a synapse is, so can understand that content about what goes on within a single neuron doesn't belong in an article about anything synaptic. And there are no medical claims in the article, so the higher standards that we have for medical articles don't apply here. The way that we fix articles about topics that belong here is to edit them, not to delete them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The standards for biological research are pretty much the same; it is the same literature to a great extent and all that literature shares the same problems. If you don't understand that please see an essay I wrote called WP:Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~.(see below) The topic is clearly notable, and nothing in what Jytdog said above gets anywhere near convincing me that there is any reason why this article should be an exception to the normal Wikipedia process of being edited in mainspace to improve it. As I said before, this describes non-synaptic processes, so merging it to an article about synaptic processes would be simply bizarre, and there is nothing here that means that the article qualifies for higher-than-normal standards demanded by such policies and guidelines as
WP:MEDRS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity. The topic of plastic changes in neural systems different from synaptic plasticity is of course a big topic in neuroscience and we have a well developed article on the topic at nonsynaptic plasticity. The current article, or at least its refs, discuss briefly some aspects of the same topic. Hence a merge or redirect to that article would best serve our readers. --Mark viking (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity, as Mark has found that we already have an article on the topic. Well spotted! 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But my efforts are disruptive.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your efforts here were very different from those of Mark viking. I can see that you are editing in good faith, and are willing to be thoughtful about what you are doing, so I would prefer it if you were to work out for yourself why they are different rather than have me spell it out. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity. Redundant article on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Bal-e Bala

Bal-e Bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTE Apriestofgix (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:TROUT to the nom for disruption. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTE. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All verified settlements are kept per
WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as villages are normally considered notable as per
WP:NPLACE Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per
WP:5PILLARS; a stated purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a gazetteer. That said, I can't seem to dig up anything but wiki-mirrors in searches; the only source is an excel file (and I value my computer too much to make a habit of opening random .xls files hosted in Iran). However, I can easily see this as being a function of being unable to search for the subject in the native language/script, and there's no reason to suspect a hoax here. - Antepenultimate (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per
WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Loudoun School For The Gifted

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 multiple issues that have never been resolved over many years. There seems to be no desire to expand this beyond it's current stub. Apriestofgix (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - Since when is article quality or lack of improvement a valid reason for deletion? The nomination is faulty, that's why the "snow". The school meets notability for a school as it is a diploma granting institution (an accredited diploma granting institution, a claim many if not most schools we have articles on can't make. See this) so keep per
outcomes. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Snow keep. In addition to the usual presumption that we keep articles about verified high schools, in this case there's actual coverage readily found, such as these recent no deadline.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reasons above unfortunately, because it is a blatant piece of spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That it is spam was a joke, right? The only content is just "Loudoun School For The Gifted is a private school for advanced studies in grades 6-12 located in Ashburn, Virginia." And no one removed spam to get it to that. I probably misunderstand what spam is, but the content sounds to me like it could simply be factual. --do ncr am 04:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination reasons not valid. I haven't checked sources suggested above by other editors, but expect they check out as establishing notability. --do ncr am 04:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Renee Gabriel

Madison Renee Gabriel (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 significant coverage of this child actress. May very well become notable in the near future but isn't there yet. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are bad-to-nonexistent and a look around Google doesn't indicate much. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Madison Gabriel may well one day be a notable actress. However at present she is a below the radar child actress. As a child we should be especially conscious of her privacy rights and not have an article that lacks good, strong, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not yet a
notable actor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all above. Glad to see it's been culled - David Gerard (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Crow^Caw 18:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CST Complex

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 technical and complex I could have tagged it but I would like it to be deleted as it cannot be improved enough to make it into a stand alone article Varun FEB2003 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, and I'm tempted to suggest snow close.
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. "Too technical and complex" is not a reason for deletion. There is a perfectly good cleanup template {{Technical}}, but the article has a good authoritative source and is perfectly encyclopedic. Also, it had only been created for two minutes when you sent it here. --Stfg (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Request withdrawn I have put up {{Technical}} up there. Let's see. Varun FEB2003 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stfg: Pinging Varun FEB2003 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ergolight

Ergolight (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)

NN defunct company, article written by the founder (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Avi Harel. PROD was removed, and apparently it's not entirely promotional, so the CSD was declined. Now we're here. MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn coinage by a defunct business.
talk) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no useful hits in Google, references are self-promotional. There is an active lighting company called ErgoLight which is unrelated. John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and the supporting spam has been PRODed and deleted - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the quality of the votes. Numerically it may appear that a consensus is to 'keep' but these appear to mostly 'I LIKE IT' votes or votes without any rationale based on policy or guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatianna (drag queen)

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

Tatianna (drag queen) (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. Poorly sourced
self-published website as proof that he performed there, (3) a "local boy makes good" article in his own hometown newspaper, and (4) a blogsourced opinion piece about why he should win the season (even though he's already been cut). This is not the kind of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. Due to the person being a well-known reality television personality. Wikipedia has articles on many people from reality shows like The Voice, America's Got Talent, American Idol. Tatianna was a Top 4 finisher and is now on All-Stars. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's rules, when it comes to reality shows, is that the winner is the only one who gets over the notability bar just for appearing on the show in and of itself — non-winning competitors can sometimes still accrue notability in the same ways as people who weren't on the show at all can (e.g. a singer who lost on American Idol can still get signed to a label afterward and have hit singles, and is not precluded from satisfying
WP:NMUSIC for those followup achievements just because they didn't win Idol), but they don't get automatic inclusion freebies just for the fact of being on a reality show in and of itself. Winner gets article because show; anybody who didn't win gets article if they satisfy some other inclusion criteria after getting cut from the show, and not because show. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I came onto Wikipedia today specifically to find out more about Tatianna so was glad to see there was an article, since most of the other competitors have them. She released a single after being eliminated from Rupaul's All Stars, so has done other things apart from the show, and there are references to articles in the entry as it stands(eg Tatianna on All Stars, 'Same Parts,' & Reading the Judges). Also, as I understand it all the eliminated competitors are likely to return later in the season due to the way it is being set up. I first tried looking Tatianna up a few weeks ago and could find next to no info so this article was welcome and helpful. Socratic12 talk 20.12, 12 September 2016 GMT —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (1) We
only passing references to Tatianna. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: She is notable, and has been written about and interviewed in several publications, and it is not true only winners get their own pages - Pearl, Yara Sofia, Shangela, Laganja and countless other contestants have their own wikipedia entries.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even Mimi Imfurst has a page on wikipedia being the first queen eliminated from the first AllStars season. Same with Tammie Brown. I don't see the reason why Tatianna can't have a wikipedia page when she's been in the latest season of RPDR, she's probably coming back, and there's actually people interested on getting to know her better. She wasn't a notable drag queen in the past cause drag race clearly didn't had as many fans as it has now and unlike Raven (Aka the only queen from S2 people actually remember), she didn't stick with WOW presents. It's a different situation now.

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show (Alaska didn't win, for example, but attained notability afterward by continuing to attract attention for her musical career.) But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason why they qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is well known and was on two seasons of a popular show, from a few years ago and in the present. She is verified on Twitter and the number of followers she has proves that a lot of people show interest in her. Other drag queens that only participated one episode of RPDR like Mimi Imfurst has a Wikipedia page. Most participant's in all stars 2 also have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.87.53 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. And having a verified account on Twitter is not a notability criterion either, nor is the number of followers a person does or doesn't have on any social media platform.
notability criterion is the be-all and end-all of whether a person qualifies for a standalone article or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP. She is heavily featured in promos for RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 2. She has made many television and online-based appearances promoting said show including the recent MTV VMA's.She has a currently charting single on iTunes and as said above is Twitter verified. If other performers with less credentials have a page then so should she. Her credentials as you said will only grow from here since All-Stars 2 is only 3 episodes in so deleting this page seems premature at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.214.116 (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that only winners get to have Wikipedia articles; losers can still accrue sufficient notability for accomplishing other things after being on the show. But the winner is the only person who gets to have "was on the show" be, in and of itself, the reason for getting an article. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. What somebody is doing on Twitter has absolutely no bearing on what we do, for example. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage.
talk) 17:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Less coverage than Derrick Barry and we got rid of her. Oath2order (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, there is a possibility of brigading as fans have discovered this and are not too happy about the possibility of deletion. Just want to put that out there. Oath2order (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What is the value of deletion when clearly there are a lot of people who are passionate about keeping this page? This has yet to be articulated. Is it a bandwidth issue? Without clearly articulated value regarding deletion, the article should be kept. Does Wikipedia intend to be a source for a more expansive information set/knowledge base than traditional information sources or not? The burden for deletion should be significant for any article so as not to infringe on that exchange of information and to deter elitist curation based on a small group of "judges" who may be influenced by narrow world views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.36.7.156 (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passion about a subject does not mean that it's something that should be kept. The fact is, Wikipedia has guidelines for what is considered relevant and notable; unfortunately, Tatianna is neither until she does more. Oath2order (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are kept or deleted based on the presence or absence of
WP:GNG — if they're not, then the article quite simply has to wait until the volume and quality of coverage increases. Our inclusion criteria do not allow people to be exempted from having to be properly sourced. It's not our job to include an article about every person who can be verified as simply existing; there are other places (like the Drag Race Wiki) where people can turn for information about her, so it's not our responsibility to suspend our inclusion requirements. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is divided (with a slight lead for delete) between the view that this is a POV fork of Clinton Foundation and the view that it is an independently notable subtopic. There are defensible arguments (as well as many low-effort "votes") on both sides, such that I can't determine based on policy who is "right". Sandstein 19:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy

Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy (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 a
WP:COATRACK in its current form; also presents BLP concerns. — Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious keep. This is no different from Hillary Clinton email controversy in the sense of being a perfectly valid article subject. The argument seems to be that it is a POV fork of the Clinton Foundation article but this controversy would overwhelm that article, just as it would overwhelm the article about the United States Department of State. There are separate articles about many Clinton scandals, though Wikipedia editors have decided that any list of them is verboten, so it's no surprise when they would try to delete articles about the scandals themselves. Good luck with that. Maybe we should delete Watergate scandal too, as a POV fork of Presidency of Richard Nixon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden
discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The email controversy is a molehill compared to Watergate (so far), and this thing is a molehill compared to the email controversy (so far), but if a molehill is big enough and covered in reliable mainstream sources enough then it's appropriate for it to become the subject of one of Wikipedia's millions of articles (take a look at them, there's an article for every moth and every subway stop and every athlete who ever kicked a soccer ball).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "controversy" perhaps merits a mention - a few sentences - in the main article on the Clinton Foundation but it does not warrant its own article. Indeed, a good chunk of the content of this article consists exactly of material that was removed from the Clinton Foundation article on BLP and POV grounds... which is of course why C.Fredkin created this article (with your help) - because including that content in the original article would require firm consensus which he knew he couldn't get.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, articles on "moths" generally aren't subject to BLP policy. Hate to point out the obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, using the exact same logic, and the same kind of process, someone could create an article on, say, List of white supremacists supporting Donald Trump or White supremacist support for Donald Trump. There's plenty of sources: Wall St Journal, ABC News, MSNBC, [21], Politico, VF, [22], WaPo, and a ton more. And all of these are reliable sources (well, I'm not 100% sure about the Alaska Dispatch News one). Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we let other editors get a word in edgewise?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is stopping anyone from commenting below. Now stop deflecting and please answer the question. Would you vote to keep those articles? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't deflecting, just exercising my right to
not read. But since you insist, no I would have no objection to an article titled White supremacists to whom Donald Trump has sold access and favors. Assuming there are any.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
So you would vote "keep" for an article on
WP:AGENDA appears to fit)Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Too many leading questions. We two have said enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question which illustrates a valid point. If the article of this AfD is legitimate then so is an article on White supremacist support for Donald Trump. Your continual evasiveness and refusal to actually answer the question sort of evidences the fact that you know this but don't want to state it out loud.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Communist Party USA has endorsed Clinton even in the primaries. Should we write an article about that? TFD (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except it didn't. Anyway, if you got a dozen reliable sources on the topic then maybe... as long as we can also write the White supremacist support for Donald Trump article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the party's website, "America needs a landslide against Trump." Their electoral strategy is to not field a candidate, but to get their members and supporters to support Clinton. It is covered in U.S. News and other mainstream media. And no I do not think there should be an article, just wondering whether you did. TFD (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a very weak argument. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary. While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information. In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable sources. So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets
notability. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The topic is notable; notability is validated not merely by the amount of news coverage, but by the caliber of that coverage, articles like Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and the promises she made about it, explained,
Washington Post [23], and From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer, The Atlantic [24] (scroll down to Clinton Foundation. That said, we can consider what is the best title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This page combines negative information about living person that suppose to be on page Clinton Foundation. Hence this is a POV fork of this section already present on page "Clinton Foundation" and possibly also an "attack page". And it has been created as a POV fork. According to one of users, "The article is ... an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page". [25] My very best wishes (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is main problem with describing this controversy on this page. It creates false impression that Clinton is profiting from the organization, instead of doing charity work ("allegations that government access was traded for money"). However, in fact 80-90 percent of the expenditures by Foundation go toward charitable programs. Hence the POV and a possible attack page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to comment briefly about that. There are over 30,000 of those emails that have been made public, and they discuss an immense variety of subjects; I don't think one should delete all Wikipedia articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have that backwards. It should be "I don't think one should create all Wikipedia articles about those subjects merely because they're mentioned in the emails"

And MVBW's link clearly shows, in case there was any doubt, that the creation of this article was a
WP:POINTy bad faithed way to circumvent the presence of discretionary sanctions on the main article. Like I said, you're being played and I'm sure couple of the editors responsible are laughing their asses off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as
WP:POVFORK. It's not clear why this unproven allegation would need an article of its own. This sort of trash is often created during election season, and may be safely deleted. Anything useful can be put into Clinton Foundation, although editors will have to look really hard to find such. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
WP:POVFORK says: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." So far, the editors claiming that this is a POVFORK of Clinton Foundation have been unable to provide evidence of a disagreement there that supposedly resulted in this article. I'll also note that the sources for this article are impeccable.CFredkin (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)CFredkin (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There is that word "generally" in there. They could also arise when some editors KNOW that their preferred POV content won't be included in the main article so they go off and create their
WP:POVFORK also says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" which is exactly the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

In fact, there were disagreements on main page about it, as documented here, but instead of resolving disagreements by consensus, editors created this fork page - as acknowledged here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see references to the content in this article in the link provided to the Clinton Foundation Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not "original research"; it's all over the newspapers. Also regarding, "unpublished synthesis", do we need to cite specific pages from Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash? In any case, it seems pretty clear to me that the article should be kept and improved. Wikipedia is a work in progress...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Clinton Cash". A fringe far right conspiracy theory book. That pretty much exemplifies what kind of article we're talking about here (in fact, this article is pretty much based on that book except pains have been taken to make it look legit. Anyone familiar with the book can see right away that "Clinton Cash" served as a template).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the research from the book has been republished by the mainstream media. So, it may be inconvenient, but
WP:UNCENSORED. Regarding your use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", I am not too sure; if it is published research, we as Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to remain neutral and not pass judgements on sources we don't like. The book was published by HarperCollins apparently, a perfectly respectable publisher. Are there reliable third-party sources suggesting this is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy? If so, you could add this content to the article to expand it, not try to delete it.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that the issue is highly controversial and it must be described, but it has been already described on a number of pages, one of them is "Clinton Cash". Perhaps it should be described in even more detail, but this should be done in appropriate subsections of main page about the Foundation, and such subsections already exist and describe the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book was partisan and contained some errors which were corrected. But it is not conspiracist and was published by a reputable publisher. It is not in the same league as Citizen United's Hillary: The Movie. TFD (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We now have more than 130 pages about Hillary including pages within sub-categories [26]. Is not that excessive? My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtless some of them are excessive, but they need to be considered on an individual basis, and also it would be interesting to know the total number of pages for other living people; is her number the highest? In any event, the many legitimate pages for this BLP subject could be more easily navigated with the help of lists (like this). And let's not forget: the number 130 is very tiny compared to the number of pages about her in reliable sources (which undoubtedly number in the millions).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This page looks like a stub for Criticism of Hillary Clinton. Is anyone who does same thing for Donald Trump? I am thinking what kind of "fun" that might be. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@
MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, obviously crossing the threshold of
WP:N. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, but it is preferable to fix it than delete. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This is a notable subject widely covered by reliable sources. I agree with a cleanup and title change. DoubleCross (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to what? Corruption accusations of Hillary Clinton? That is what this page actually about. Or maybe this should be page Corruption accusations during US presidential elections, 2016, - see this article? There are plenty of sources about anything. My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current title is factual. There is a controversy between the USDS and the William J. Clinton Foundation. If we use the word "back-and-forth" instead of "controversy", it will sound POV (as Clinton denies it).Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's make search for the current title in Google news: [27]. It produces exactly one source. Yes, the conjecture between Clinton Foundation and State Department was made in certain sources and therefore not an "original research". However, the way it was presented here is POV, the title of the page is inherently POV (it was created to make a conjecture implicitly accusing a living person), and it duplicate content already present in other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Clinton"+"pay for play" gets 12,600 hits.[28] Would you prefer that title? TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am only saying that current title is inherently POV. It is constructed to disparage a living person. This is not OK for encyclopedia. Several voters to "keep" suggested to change the title - apparently for that very reason (see above). This might be a good idea, but they did not explain how exactly the title should be changed, and I do not see a reasonable solution. Frankly, I think that WP should not promote propaganda about perceived, rather than actual corruption. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears to be a campaign controversy. The article does not mention the word "corruption", by the way. (I just did a word search.) Wikipedia is only relaying factual information from reliable third-party sources in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this WP page does not tell "corruption" because there was no any actual (proven) corruption. However, it implies corruption, as more explicitly discussed in publications ("Why Hillary Clinton’s perceived corruption seems to echo louder than Donald Trump’s actual corruption"). This page implies a crime that did not actually happen. But once again, I think this can be noted as something published, but only on appropriate page and in appropriate context, i.e. on the page about the Foundation. This is POV fork. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic
WP:AGENDA at work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - This has had significant coverage in the news (e.g. [29],[30],[31],[32],[33]). Certainly enough that it deserves either substantial coverage at Clinton Foundation (though some editors insist they will try to remove material there at all costs, not helping their case), or its own article. If ideology is helping to generate support for "keep," it seems even more powerfully to motivate support for "delete." Significant coverage in reliable sources wins in my view. -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Article is good and informative. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it doesn't violate
WP:POVFORK then. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a Trumped up welter of SYNTH, failed V, OR, and BLP smears. I understand that certain partisans may use the word "controversy" to validate the various conspiracy theories and ruminations brewed by their favorite media pundits, but this article fails the basic sourcing policies of WP. Scrape together a series of tenuous or half-accurate "facts" and then caption it "controversy" -- this is not what we do on WP. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork, not notable enough for its own article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:POVFORK. --Proud User (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Detailed spinoff articles are a core concept of wikipedia. This controversy has been covered by many many top tier sources for an extended period of time. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except
WP:spinoff didn't apply to the Clinton Foundation article in the first place, and still doesn't. Also, there was no consensus for a WP:spinoff because it wasn't ever discussed anywhere - except maybe here [34] - after this "controversy" article was created. Apparently there was disagreeable "whitewashing" going on over at the Clinton Foundation article - so this article is somehow "...an absurdly simple solution to all the whitewashing happening on the main Clinton Foundation page". I would like to propose another ironically simple solution - editing in agreement with our core content policies such as NPOV, V, NOR, CONSENSUS, and BLP. Also, I noticed "whitewashing" was used well before the creation of this new page, during Clinton Foundation talk page discussions, along with other POV descriptors of a similar vein. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - It's not a question of notability.
WP:POVFORK. I don't contend that there's coverage -- but what's certainly not established is lasting significance outside the campaign/candidacy. I would support deleting the lot of stand-alone "controversy", "conspiracy", etc. articles that have no life outside of 2016 election/campaign/candidacy coverage until after the election, when we can see what has lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete –
MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per users Anythingyouwant, The Wordsmith, and TFD. A stand-alone article is the perfect venue for the complexity of topic. The analogy-argument by user Volunteer Marek re Supremists supporting Trump is bogus; the two elements have no comparable connection. The 'biased title' assertion and other arguments by user My very best wishes are baseless and screechy. IHTS (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if the "topic" was actually complex (it isn't). These are simply allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. You can cover that in a paragraph in at
WP:POVFORK of its own, just so it can act as a shit magnet for every ludicrous claim the right can think up. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

One could create a lot of similar pages based on coverage during the election campaign. Consider something like Islamophobia of Donald Trump (the sources: [35],[36],[37]), this story about Trump, this story about Trump, this story, etc. Each of these subjects has received significant press coverage. Should they be mentioned on general pages related to the election campaign? Yes. Should we create separate pages about each of them? No, because these are not long-lasting encyclopedic subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all opinion pieces and hence not reliable sources. If however you could find numerous reliable secondary sources covering the opinion that Trump was Isamophobic, you could write an article, just as you could write an article about the Clinton campaign's appeal to xenophobia in 2008. We actually have an article about the
notability. TFD (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The Four Deuces, this appeal to reliable sources is a bit specious, since Trump's incorrect statements about Muslims have been widely discredited by reliable sources, and thus Donald Trump's lies about Muslims in the United States, for instance, is perfectly legit and easily sourced. BTW, finding "reliable secondary sources covering the opinion that Trump was Islamophobic" means we can write that article? No, that tortured sentence would mean we can write an article called Opinions claiming that Trump is Islamophobic or something like that. Neither of these two articles, both of which are easily sources, are acceptable for Wikipedia. And that goes for this one as well. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per Darouet. The topic is covered by notable sources, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is chiefly about allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. Fringe elements on the right making allegations and some RS investigating those allegations (and finding nothing of note, see the AP story for the classic example) doesn't merit its own article.
talk) 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A mishmash of political attacks, legitimate criticism, and selective quotation of sources, all cooked up for the pretty clear purpose of circumventing any attempt to build consensus at the main article,
WP:POVFORK. Neutrality^talk
13:33, 14 September 2016‎ (URC)

Relisting comment: An absolutely enlightening debate... Re-listing for clearer consensus Lourdes 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

keep - not a fork, but a split per
talk) 17:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This can scarcely be said to be a "clearly defined subtopic." In fact, it's a mishmash of largely unrelated attacks and criticisms. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it clearly violates the
section of the article on Summary Style on POV forks, because of the way it was written. It's irretrievably bad, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
How? See my comments below. TFD (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few editors have voted to delete by citing "
WP:POVFORK." That is not an argument, unless an explanation is provided why it violates POVFORK, which no one has done. Certainly forks are allowed and even some POVFORKs are allowed. No one has explained what makes this a POVFORK or an unacceptable POVFORK. A POVFORK is an article about the same subject that gives different weight to the content. "Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy" is not a competing version of "Clinton Foundation" that provides a different narrative, but is solely concerned with one aspect of the foundation, viz, the "controversy." There are numerous examples of similar articles. The "Watergate Scandal" for example, while it may be a fork of the "Watergate Hotel" or the "Nixon Administration" is not a POVFORK, because it does not provide an alternative narrative of the Watergate Hotel or the Nixon Administration. TFD (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The statement that there is an actual controversy is already POV. Sources on the right claim there is a controversy, sources in the middle and on the left mostly deny this. In other words, the very title is problematic. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that there is a controversy over whether there is a controversy. I think you mean that only the Right questions the Foundation. If that is true, it is not a reason to delete the article, but something that should be added to it. Incidentally that is true of most political controversies from Watergate to the Monica Lewinsky affair. One side will make allegations that the other denies. TFD (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regretfully. It's a valid spinoff from either the foundation or campaign articles, and including all the back-and-forth in either article would give undue weight to the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I made the wrong call above. It's too much of a mishmash as it stands, and the information about the alleged pay-to-play wouldn't be overbearing in the main article. Delete per SYNTH, as others have stated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total
WP:POVFORK, many others have explained the fork above, I agree with those arguments. Rockypedia (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Strong. Put the relevant information in the respective articles about the C Foundation and H Clinton. (Wikipedians should create a rule and NOT allow writing articles about current events). (I have a wiki account (not active in the last year) and I have edited with my different dynamic IP in the last 2 months. I'm saying this because I don't know if there are crteria about commenting/voting here.) --151.47.207.137 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That talking heads discuss it, and that the press discusses the talking heads discussing it, does not notability make. Scjessey said it pretty good, "That would be great if the "topic" was actually complex (it isn't). These are simply allegations of impropriety without any actual substance. You can cover that in a paragraph in at Clinton Foundation." Delete as essentially POV. It seems to me that there is a great desire to populate Category:Controversies related to Hillary Clinton. One wishes some editors would pay fair and balanced attention to Category:Controversies related to Donald Trump, but that category didn't even exist until recently. How strange. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies, I think you'll find that there are a lot more non-controversy-related articles at Wikipedia about Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, because much more has been written about her over the years, and because she has been a political figure a lot longer. So having more controversy-related stuff about Clinton is not anomalous. I tried to spruce up this article some more today. When people like Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, and the editorial board of the New York Times all say that this controversy involved ethical problems (if not legal ones), then I hardly think you can pin this one on the vast right-wing conspiracy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Clinton category dates only from last year, same time Trump started running. As for the rest, I disagree with you. Again, not everything that the NYT spends an article on is worthy of its own article. I simply do not see why this can't be captured in the main article, with the amount of space determined by the number and availability of the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of space required by the available sources would take up too much room in the main article about the Clinton Foundation, and so would give the matter undue weight in that article. I would be glad to get rid of the Hillary Clinton controversy category, if we can instead have a list format which would be more appropriate and useful (I've been suggesting such a list for many years[38]).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per arguments from Neutrality, MelbourneStar, Drmies, and others. The article is
WP:POVFORK. The existence of sources is a necessary, but insufficient, criteria for an article to exist. The subject should also be covered as a cohesive subject in multiple reliable sources. A Google news search for Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy suggests that that's not the case.- Mr X 00:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep seems like an obvious keep given the significant coverage of the controversy.
talk) 01:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mercy!! We don't even have an RS reference cited that states there is a "controversy" concerning the relationship of the Foundation to the State Dept. It is 100% SYNTH.SPECIFICO (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what's at stake here--whether there is such significant coverage beyond the usual news on today's controversy, manufactured or not. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV Fork as aptly demonstrated by
WP: weasel word in that it is vague, is an opinion (POV), and gives the impression the topic is authoritatively communicating something specific and meaningful "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment (as nominator). As of my nomination this article [41] was a textbook POV fork: a hodgepodge of weakly sourced negative claims about the Foundation, created by a small group of editors who had been unable to shoehorn the material into either the Foundation article or the Clinton campaign article. My various attempts to attach POV and RS tags were repeatedly reverted, so I thought it best to just delete the article for being untenable as-is, and unlikely to improve. Since then I've been sitting back rather than offering my !vote, watching as a number of good arguments have come in for keeping the article, and some very solid efforts on all sides to improve it and get rid of any POV. It's not a bad article at all now, and this is far from a slam dunk case, but on balance I don't think this article stands on its own as a legitimate
WP:COATRACK by listing a bunch of things that could be taken as negative. So, all in all, most of the content is either something significant enough that it would belong in the foundation article or some other sub-article if editors there saw fit to include them, or else very minor trivial stuff that does not pass weight concerns. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@Wikidemon: FYI nomination assumes supporting deletion, so a second bolded !vote from the nominator is taken as a duplicate. Suggesting you unbold or change to 'comment'. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That just goes to show you how rusty I am at deletion nominations :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete as POV Fork. Brianga (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless short rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete because: (1) the article reads a lot like finger-pointing, much like a blog (not like Wikipedia, which is what this site is called); (2) this is a coatrack which is used to further support an argument that such a controversy exists, but again, this is not a blog or a research paper; (3) it's not notable on its own, so merge all the content back to the Clinton Foundation article. By the way, I'm not voting for either Clinton or Trump, not that it matters, but you can't really say I'm biased. epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EM Gregory, there is plenty here for an article even if it is negative about Hillary. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 17:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that this is original research and POV and that there's a distinct lack of reliable sources to support an article. —SpacemanSpiff 05:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes and riots against tamil

Disputes and riots against tamil (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. COPYVIO. I had tagged the page with CSD, which was removed by an IP. Copyvio with this site. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup. I fail to see any copyvio against the URL cited. If there are small pieces I didn't notice at a glance, just remove them from article.
talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Most available references referreing to the title deal with the Sinhalese-Tamil conflict in Sri Lanka, not India. The entire article was written with only one reference. The concept of the article isn't imaginary, but very little seems to be written on the subject in regard to India. Fails
WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
The article was cut-and-paste collection from various sources, incuding wikipedia articles on the subject. I deleted several largest unreferenced pieces which were not based on wikipedia articles. The pieces based on wikipedia articles do not immediately require references, because the refs may be found an articles mentioned ad "main" for corresponding sections.
talk) 16:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If the article survives, it must be renamed to
talk) 16:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Its content is a mish-mash of stuff, and its introduction isn't much better. The subject matter is unclear; per Staszek Lem it should be renamed if kept, maybe under Anti-Tamil sentiment in Karnataka. But much of the current content isn't part of anything at all, so I don't see much value in keeping what is misnamed and unclearly defined. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a definite
Police encounter of 20 smugglers (which was an alleged fake encounter) and had nothing to do with riots against Tamils. Article makes controversial claims without citing any references (I cleaned up some such claims). Definite case of COI and POV and copy+paste from other Wikipedia articles. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, but COI and POV aren't necessarily reasons for deletion, and the copyvio bits have been commented on. Let's focus on whether the ostensible subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Drmies, I did not try to open another channel of communication but simple gave my observation (and that's why I did not even attempt to change the "goalpost"); which I feel is also an important point to note. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand, and I know I'm stating the obvious--but I'm mainly saying this for those who may be new to the process of AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I agree that the article needs cleanup of the points mentioned above, but this presents history of riots against a race which i think does not violate any wikipedia general notability guidelines Vazzz.. (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, forgive my ignorance of this subject but the article does not presently cite any books, journal, or newspaper articles that discuss this subject as a whole, isn't this article a case of
WP:OR? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT#OR This is an awful mishmash of content from various sources. Perhaps only one of them was a race riot. I was particularly amazed that 2013 Little India riot was included as a "riot against Tamils" - it wasn't a race riot, simply a few foreign workers who got agitated and rioted. I removed these parts and essentially what is left is the Karanataka anti-Tamil riots and a small part about the Sri Lankan conflict. These are better covered in their own articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor van Mierlo

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

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

Fails
WP:NEWSPRIMARY
interview in a student newspaper and two website directory profile pages. I can't find any press coverage of him.
A notability prod yesterday was removed by new user
McGeddon (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Support Delete: This article is, it seems, written by an editor close to the subject -- note editor TOHB2016's history: [42]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sriracha310: by "peer" I was referring to fellow academic subject matter expert. The notability guidelines are clear that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Would it help to include mention of van Mierlo's 32 peer-reviewed published articles and 538 citations?Sriracha310 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sriracha310 [43], are you the same user as TOHB2016 [44] and/or EHS2014pub [45] and/or other users? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sriracha310: Isambard Kingdom to reply to your question, no I am not. Would you agree that according to academic notably guidelites referenced above, if the other 32 academic publications and 538 citations are included the issue would be resolved? —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COI. I also note that your edit history is remarkably similar to those of TOHB2016 and EHS2014pub. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I initially PRODed the article for the same concerns that
WP:SCHOLAR are not met. The number of academic publications has no import, it is their influence, as described in secondary sources, awards given and honors obtained that matter. The statement quoted above from this guideline is a misdirection, secondary sources are necessary for establishing notability, it is just not necessary that a biography appears in a secondary source. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

TOHB2016 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Bill Cherowitzo Secondary sources, awards, interviews added - I am new to this process, the rules are confusing, and seem to push toward promotion rather than focusing on subject matter expertise. I feel a bit strange adding all the required info; not really the best focus of my time.
The 1% rule which was originally added by EHS2014pub in Feb 2014 (according to NIH the article has reached 57 citations), the increased interest in the subject, and other issues. For reference / COI questions I am in the digital health academic community. When the 1% entry was linked to this article (as internal links seem to be a requirement / a pop-up message once the article is created) it appears that you deleted The 1% rule entry in entirety for possible COI. When the section was put back up with the COI link to this article removed (so, no COI but academic reference/footnote included) you once again deleted it - even though that content has been up for well over 2 years and have served the community well. I appreciate the hard work done, but the rules here are a bit murky and I now find myself searching for and posting info that is beyond my core competency (I am not a biographer or a blogger or a writer). So, I will now disengage with this process and leave the work to you folks who seem to know what they are doing. Although we don't allow students to reference Wikipedia I certainly have more appreciation for the quality of information, so your work is appreciated.[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impact not yet apparent WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(
WP:BLP violation deleted by administrator, Sandstein 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC))[reply
]

Please note that the article will be kept or deleted based on Wikipedia policy about notability and
reliable sourcing, not based on anybody's personal opinion about what a "self indulgent pig" he might be. Wikipedia articles are not kept or deleted based on whether the subject is a nice person or not — lots of notable people weren't very "nice" in their private lives, and lots of nice guys aren't notable. It will be kept or deleted based on whether it can be made compliant with Wikipedia's inclusion rules or not, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Andrei Marga

Andrei Marga (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 am Andrei Marga, the person referred to in this biography. I do not want this content about me on Wikipedia at all. Tempeditor (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marga was the minister of education of Romania for at least 3 years, and we have lots of reliable sources. No way he is other than notable. Desire to obscure past political actions one may now regret is not reason we should delete an article. The university rector positions and political party leadership might also make him notable if he had not been minister of education, but being minister of education makes him 100% pass any and all inclusion guidelines. This is a person so important that it would be a travesty to not have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes
WP:GNG. The subject's feelings (if the nominator is indeed the subject) are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (
WP:ACADEMIC, well sourced article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Clear keep despite subject's views. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep for unambiguously encyclopedic notability. The article could really do with a polish-up, though. I also notified comcom of this AFD. If this is Mr Marga and he has particular actionable issues with the content that he can detail, he should definitely contact [email protected] with his concerns - David Gerard (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia articles are not kept or deleted based on the subject's desire to not have a Wikipedia article — for a low-profile figure whose includability may be debatable we have some latitude to consider deletion per
WP:BLPN for review, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Tabarlet

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

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete was a mayor of a minor place, that is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN very small town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smalltown mayor and non-winning candidate for higher office without anything even approaching the depth or quality of sourcing it takes to make either of those a valid notability claim on Wikipedia. Literally the only thing here that constitutes
WP:GNG has not been met either. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 05:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Lacrosse Federation

Indian National Lacrosse Federation (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)

Unverifiable. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable sources attesting to the existence of this organisation. Indeed, I can find no sources at all. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all, except wiki clones. Also [Federation of International Lacrosse] does not list India as a member, so it's likely complete nonsense.No longer a penguin (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
WP:GNG, gsearch just brings up mirrors searching under english or hindi, searching under "lacrosse in india" found this that suggests lacrosse not even being played in india when this article was created, the reference for this at List of national lacrosse governing bodies goes nowhere. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
Anup [Talk] 04:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Melton

Lucas Melton (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)

Would have PRODed this but the article has one external link. Non-notable actor. Links to two non-notable tv shows and a twitter account do not constitute notability. Internet search turns up Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Pintrest, and LinkedIn results, but not independent reliable non-trivial sources. KDS4444 (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete He only starred in 3 minor to extremly minor (statist) roles. He fails WP:NACTOR outright. I cant find any reliable sources which deals about him, there is nothing significant about him (which isnt a surprise given his marginal film record). So he fails WP:GNG too. Btw he has a brother Jacob Melton who has a track record which is a bit larger, but perhaps his notability should be checked too. Dead Mary (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete chold actor who we lack adequate sources on. We should not be creating articles on children without really good sources on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Yintan 18:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable, independent sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. MikeLynch (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Lovegrove

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

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

Is she notable? If yes I am ready to withdraw but I don't feel she's notable Varun FEB2003 12:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First reaction. For a woman of her generation to become a senior academic in computing is notable in itself. Among other things, she passes GNG guidelines because of coverage of her "gender gap" work. I'll add some more refs later today to make this clearer. Lelijg (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep as no argument for deletion has been made. AfD is not the right venue to ask questions. Joe Roe (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request withdrawn She seems to have made the copy-edit and it looks fine to me now Varun FEB2003 13:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad the extra things I added have helped. Lelijg (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The timeframe for translation has run out and the author blanked the page which can be interpreted as
WP:G7. The content has been preserved at Talk:Majac so future mergers into Majac are still possible. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Fshati Majac

Fshati Majac (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)

Written in Albanian, and its two weeks' grace period at
WP:PNT have gone by without it being translated. The routine PROD tag placed on it after the two weeks expired has been removed, so I'm posting the article here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per standard PNT procedure--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is apparently about the village Majac. I have already copied the contents to Talk:Majac, so anyone who wants to translate and expand the article can do so in the future. Therefore keeping this will serve no purpose. The article's creator perhaps does not understand that there is an Albanian Wiki, which is where this article belongs. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) delete. Note that the page creator blanked the page. Can we take that as a request for
WP:G7? --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jeffrey Storey

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

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

Fails
WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment According to
archive.org, but judging from this example, they are standard company-supplied bios which do not attest in themselves to notability and is simply "reference padding". The only other coverage of him that I could find, were press-released based announcements of his taking medical leave and subsequently returning from it in early 2014. Note also that this article was created by a "member" of this massive sockfarm, whose creations smack rather powerfully of paid editing, e.g. [47], [48]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The only test that matters is: do we have sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources, to write a verifiably neutral and factual article? Subject-specific notability guidelines are a plague and should all be burned with fire, they cause exactly this kind of confusion all the itme. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the CV sourced and supplied by
Standard and Poor's and the Denver Post article are enough to write a short, but neutral and factual article. Do you agree. Guy? If so, and if the lack of any other independent coverage of him is immaterial, then I guess the appropriate decision would be to keep it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
ping me[reply
]

Keep notable. JLOPO (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 08:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The GNG is what should generally be avoided like the plague, unless it is impossible to have a rational SNG. The WP concept of notability is artificial, based only on the availability of sources to the people who work here using the tools those working in a subject happen to have available, and does not correspond in any direct manner to suitability for an encyclopedia -- nor even to the actual existence of sources. It's the sort of rough fix we used to make in earlier years, and it is what's primarily responsible for the great distortions in coverage between different fields. It's also what's responsible for the number of debates here that hinge of using forced interpretations of the qualifications in the GNG for "independent", "substantial", and "reliable", which are generally attempts to accommodate the GNG to the reality.

However, the degree of support for the various provisions of common outcomes varies with the different subjects. For examplehe provision for schools has matched the results 99.9% of the times in both directions for 5 years or so . The provision for businessmen has had less support in practice, probably marching the result about 90% of the times. And none of the provisions there are actually SNGs in the formal sense, only statements of what usually happens. "What usually happens" can make a practical guideline, but it's not actually a SNG.

Therefore saying keep or delete in this AfD is a judgment call on whether to follow the GNG or to make an exception. There's no way of deciding that except consensus in each individual case. This particular instance is not a case where not making an exception would be utterly absurd. so it's reasonable to have different opinions. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree profoundly. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the GNG is founded on the availability of sources sufficient to ensure compliance with core policy (verifiability and NPOV) whereas virtually every SNG is a box-ticking exercise perfect for a directory but making no reference to whether we can actually source the thing. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to concur with DGG. However, I would point out that we are not desperate for such articles especially when they were created by a mass abuser of multiple accounts and some of our dedicated members feel they have to clean the stuff up to keep it. So it's a reluctant keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@
ping me[reply
]
I was the one who redirected Ottawahitech's 2013 version, Jeff Storey. When it was PROD-ed last week, i.e. three years after its creation, it still looked like this, a one sentence sub-stub with one broken bare url for a reference. Hence, I redirected it to the more complete and better referenced version. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm making the same judgement call as DGG on the basis that he is the president and CEO of a major company and that we have enough reliable published sources to write a short, neutral, and factual article (see my comments above). I have re-written it to a large extent—copyediting for coherence and removing the excessive use of subheadings which are not justified by its length. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. - NQ (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of the Guanches

Stone of the Guanches (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)

Clearly clearly non-notable Varun FEB2003 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VarunFEB2003, do you have an actual deletion rationale as to why you think this topic is "Clearly clearly non-notable"? --Oakshade (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I see no reason to delete an article on an archaeological artefact (described as "elemento excepcional" in the subheadline of the given newspaper reference). In what way is this "clearly" lacking in notability for an encyclopaedia? AllyD (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient references for an article of this type. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Varun FEB2003 07:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. utcursch | talk 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rayannapalem

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

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

Contains data but isn't written properly. Contains gibberish too. Looks like he took sentences from 50 places and dumped them together in an article. Deletion or improvement is required! Varun FEB2003 11:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
WP:GEOLAND as a legally-recognized populated place. The article has been copy edited since the time of nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

References

General, India. Office of the Registrar. Census of India, 1961: Andhra Pradesh. Census of India, 1961. Manager of Publications. pp. 3, 222.

Request withdrawn Corrections made Varun FEB2003 13:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 United Arab Emirates v Malaysia football match

2015 United Arab Emirates v Malaysia football match (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)

Nothing special about this match so not notable. Only a regular qualification match. Qed237 (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What exactly is notable about this match? A 10-0 scoreline seems unusual and that it would attract a lot of non-routine coverage, but none is cited in this article. Is this because it doesn't exist or just because the article is poorly written? The former is grounds for deletion, the latter isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a 10–0 score line is unusual, it is not unheard of for a team to be seriously outmatched in FIFA World Cup qualification tournaments.
2015 Pacific Games Nothing occurred to make this UAE–MAS match any more notable than any other international match. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence that this can pass
WP:GNG; the match is unusual but hardly record breaking Spiderone 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of
WP:GNG, this is not a record breaking score either. Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Kind of
WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Mark Westbrook

Mark Westbrook (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; one or two theatre reviews and a couple of self-published books on Google Books • DP • ^{huh?} 03:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer and director with inadquate coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.
WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

National Adaptation Plan Global Network

National Adaptation Plan Global Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional. Only 4 sources, all hidden in the "External links" section. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Travel Bug

The Travel Bug (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 2 sources, promotional. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While sources seem a bit thin on the ground,
WP:TVSERIES suggests that it could be notable given that it's been screening on a national channel. Schwede 66 05:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (
non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Barbie: Star Light Adventure

Barbie: Star Light Adventure (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)

Obvious hoax. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some stuff to vouch that this exists in some format. There's an IMDb listing and while that's certainly not evidence of existence, there is a listing at AMC Theaters for the film and a press release. A look at the Amazon listing shows that the cast list looks to be offhand correct. I'm not sure where they got the release date from, however, as it looks like this had a limited "one day only" release in July and will be released to home video in September. I'd offhand recommend redirecting this to
(｡◕‿◕｡) 02:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm... the merchandising line might actually save this, given that there is a decent amount of coverage of the toy line up. Together with the sparse coverage of the film release this might just barely squeak by as an article about the whole lineup rather than just the film alone.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously not a hoax. I'd also be ok with a merge to
Barbie (film series). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to include the toy information as altogether there is just enough coverage for the article in that form Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBPN-FM

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

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

This is a low-power
general notability guideline
.
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

CBPP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

CBPQ-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

CBPR-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note that CBPP (and its French sister station CBPP-1), a park information station, is not mentioned in the 2007 license-revocation-due-to-exemption, but the most recent mention of the station I saw on a search of the CRTC website was a 1999 decision renewing the station's license through 2006. Even so, it has the same lack of notability as the other stations in this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator. No automatic presumption of notability per
reliable sourcing to verify on an ongoing basis whether the stations are actually still operational or not — even when this class of station did have to have a conventional CRTC license there was rarely if ever any real sourcing possible beyond the license documents themselves, so when that class of sourcing disappears too there's simply nothing left. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarhata Misuari

Tarhata Misuari (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 notability for her own sake. Only known as the wife of
T*U (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nom --
{{ping}}) 08:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much in Philippine news media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if her husband does manage to become the head of an actual state as he seems to want to, it is unclear that all 5 of his wives will be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as largely only containing information for the man himself instead, none of this suggests any forms of alternatives other than delete, given there certainly would be nothing else different of information. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Software

Safe Software (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)

PRODed as advert with no good sources; PROD removed and article rewritten by apparent company source. The new version still has almost no RSes and is substantially primary sourced; several claimed sources do not mention the article subject at all. Complete failure to demonstrate
WP:NCORP; if this is the best the company itself can do with its complete clippings file to hand, this suggests there really aren't any RSes or evidence of notability. David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:WEBHOST also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls far short of
WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage in reliable sources is almost zero. Add to that the promotional article and this is a clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

There is not one good source available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Lambdin

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

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

Fails
WP:AUTHOR JMHamo (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as there are no major and significant publications or library holdings, nothing else at least suggest otherwise substance for an article. SwisterTwister talk 22:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added women writers project so that participants are aware of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet
AXS (that took over Examiner) and a search of its site brings up nothing. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Libin

Nicole Libin (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)

As PROD was removed, I had to AFD.
same reason- Not notable for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. No evidence that Libin meets
WP:PROF or the GNG. Joe Roe (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

SNOW Delete as this can only be judged as a professor, and there's nothing at all there for WP:PROF, thus there's essentially nothing to suggest otherwise better here. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be some doubt about the claim Libin is an associate professor. The link for that claim in the article is dead. On the other hand, the university directory lists her as a "contract instructor". Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11). MER-C 12:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techjini Solutions

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

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

The article is written like a advert , not sure weather it is notable per
Text me 10:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman McGuire

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Norman McGuire

Articles for deletion/Norman McGuire (2nd nomination)

Norman McGuire (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)

Originally AFDed in 2008 but speedy deleted when the author blanked. No indication of meeting notability requirements. Original arguments still stand. noq (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:NFILM. I have PRODded them both. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Mensah (Journalist)

Kent Mensah (Journalist) (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)

He is a journalist, but most sources are from websites linked to him as WP:PRIMARY.
No independent detailed coverage on him.
And the picture on the article is titled as File:Uncle kent.jpg Marvellous Spider-Man 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself had not only nominated for deletion, but actually restored after it was removed with absolutely no explanations or at least comments as to why and how it should be removed. There's overall PR-like and certainly concerning attempts at PR here given that it basically formats itself as a personal job listing. There's nothing here to suggest it would be beneficial to attempt, let alone actually improve this, if there are still not only concerns of non-notability but concerning PR. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems to be consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory

Gallery of passport stamps by country or territory (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)

Much of the content is already covered at passport stamp, and this is just a pure list, not prose. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 09:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Passport stamp. Ajf773 (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a really useful for table and merging it would make the other article far too big. — Calvin999 10:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the point in merging it, as it is just a gallery and contains little of informational value compared to Passport stamp. Wikipedia is not the Commons. I would be against merging content without the detail, i.e. just the images, especially if it is unsourced. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a copyright concern here about the images reproduced in this article. If they are found to violate copyright then the whole basis for having this article disappears. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2013/October#Cambodian_passport_stamp_copyright:

There is also the passport to consider. Passports issued by some countries are PD whereas passports issued by other countries are copyrighted. What is the copyright status of this passport? Unless the issuing country, which is unidentified, doesn't protect its passports, then the image may need to be deleted. --
Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
. So I think it should be addressed. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the
notability guideline on stand-alone lists
, the relevant guideline for this article, which is a stand-alone list of passport stamps. The guideline states that notability of a list is based on the group and "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Groups of passport stamps and collecting passport stamps has been discussed at length by many independent reliable sources. Here are just a few reliable sources but many many more are available:

Lippe-McGraw, Jordi (March 28, 2016). "The World's Coolest Passport Stamps". Travel+Leisure. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Diebelius, Georgia (April 1, 2016). "Do YOU have these passport stamps? Tourists are travelling the globe just to collect the rarest and most bizarre markings". Daily Mail. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Nesterov, Meg (December 13, 2011). "Collect Virtual Passport Stamps with Visastamper". Gadling.com. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Mancini, Vince (November 27, 2012). "ATTN: The real New Zealand is now indistinguishable from parody". Uproxx.com. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Raymond, Oneika (August 21, 2015). "Why Counting Countries Isn't As Obnoxious As It Sounds". Yahoo. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Textor, Alex Robertson (March 2, 2011). "Five ways to get more European stamps in your passport". Gadling.com. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Kelly, Jo (November 3, 2015). "Quiz: Can you match these passport stamps to their countries?". Mirror.co.uk. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

"World's Coolest Passport Stamps". Huffington Post. May 25, 2011. Retrieved September 16, 2016.

Also, regarding copyright status, some stamps have copyright protection other than CC-by-SA. For example:
File:Kleines Dienstsiegel der Deutschen Botschaft Bangkok.jpg is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of an official work issued by a German federal authority. This goes for all German passports and German passport stamps.

File:Slovenia rigonce exit.jpg is in the public domain according to Article 4, case 2 of the Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 because it is an official document.

Several other images are CC-Zero or otherwise Public Domain. Each questionable passport stamp would need to be brought up at COMMONS:Commons:Deletion requests. - tucoxn\^talk 04:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can a Slovenian stamp be subject to Polish copyright law? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lak clan

Lak clan (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 couldn't establish that they meet
WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Failure of
talk • mail) 05:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - can find no reliable sources that discuss this community. - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by
CSD#G10 (attack page). (non-admin closure) --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Jabataism, Sheik Muhammad Ali Jabata, Jabata

Jabataism, Sheik Muhammad Ali Jabata, Jabata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NEO RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 09:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jabataism was recently speedy deleted (A3), for what it is worth. Another option would be to rename it to Muhammad Ali Jabata. He could perhaps be notable, but my !vote is no. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks speedy deletable per
WP:G10 (attack page). --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Ljubić

Aleksandar Ljubić (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, unsourced BLP. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 13:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. Well, the guy certainly is notable, 2015 2005 2002 2012, 2015. The article is unsourced indeed, and might easily be a copyvio of something (it was created in a single swath), so
No such user (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. A GS
WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field of biomed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now and I vote later. It appears the same new account created this page that is under discussion and this page [49] which promotes (with promotional wording) a procedure this doctor developed. It is also a copy vio and has been tagged and blanked as such. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the new account's contributions history [50]. Appears to be SPA. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I planned to comment sooner, there's nothing convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delte there are no sources that indicate the subject's notability. In conjunction with the deleted page to which I linked, this article appears to be one facet of a promotional campaign, using Wikipedia as a platform. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial. The hallmark of such articles is the ext link in the body, which we have plenty of here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Keep as nothing else has been suggested here (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir J. Konečni

Vladimir J. Konečni (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 replete with promotional language and peacock terms, created by a
WP:TNT. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:DINC. Is there any doubt that Konečni is notable? Joe Roe (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

See
WP:TNT - notability is not the question, the issue is whether this promotional article entirely created by rather obviously conflicted editors, is the correct starting point. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Good GS citation record. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to
Yuan-ti. Merge to other article as needed as well. czar 05:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merrshaulk

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

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as above.
Yuan-ti is another possible target. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge Per JMilburn. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At this time, the discussion is headed toward a merge outcome, but two merge targets have been suggested. Relisting in hopes to obtain more input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharana Sree

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

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines of
WP:ARTIST
.
No mention in reliable third party references. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources are here There are some of the sources that i have collected from the respective person. Here I am sharing an open link. Please check them all if they can contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. And help us regarding this issue. Thank You. Click here to Open Google Drive Link --ImTHOP (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some Newspaper Articles about Sharana Sree Authors from various Newspapers published few articles about Sharana Sree. Most of these articles are written in her native language "Telugu". You can also check them through the following link. You will find photos of all articles referred in the content. Click here to Open Google Drive link containing photos of News articles — ImTHOP (♥~ℳe) 15:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are blogs and zines; no indepth third-party coverage. As per nom.
^Pocketed

Acceptable (Don't Delete) as article contains enough information about subject that is supported by primary sources and secondary sources. Hence article is eligible to be on wikipedia.49.213.19.79 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Some of what would seem to be the most useful sources are not online. Usually, I would grant them weight anyway, assuming good faith. However, the history of highly-promotional edits by the obviously-connected contributor (they're uploading pictures of primary documents) makes it problematic to assume that the materials are of proper import and depth. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lot wrong with the article beyond the state of the references. Over promotional hyperbole aside subject does not meet any notabliilty guidelines. This is nothing more than a self serving promo piece - long tagged as such even though they are consistently removed by the primary editor.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet
WP:GNG, nor do I see the accomplishments that show she meets the notability criteria for dancers, musicians, or martial artists. The puffery, (e.g., " a multi splendored genius") is not grounds for deletion, but it does indicate a likely COI. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. I searched, and could find no third-party references whatsoever. None of the claimed achievements or awards appears to be notable. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
Anup [Talk] 04:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creately

Creately (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)

Previously PRODed and de-PRODed but the new references are simply more of the same- almost all press releases in a niche market area. I can see nothing here which conveys notability despite the bets efforts of the company's own writers. Fails
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom: the sourcing is entirely
^Pocketed 09:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising PR given the article naturally goes to specifications about the software and then the sources themselves simply being the expected activities such as the business talking about itself, events, financial and business activities. None of this actually substantiates anything close to substance. SwisterTwister talk 18:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Darren Dione Aquino
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LiveMedia

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

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

Delete. Fails
WP:ORG. Just another company going about doing regular business. Nothing notable about the company. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I frankly would consider this G11 simply because it's so focused with PR and advertising information; the entire article from beginning to end focuses with the company's expected activities such as seeking and establishing capital and funding; there has been large consensus at AfD that none of that, regardless of where it comes from or what it is, establishes any forms of substance or information as an acceptable article. There has also been consensus that Indian media is notorious for having a "pay for news" operation, therefore news cannot always be confided as being independent and authored by the news source itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no claim of notability and is obviously
WP:PROMO for the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: non-notable company. it simply fails
Anup [Talk] 03:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jain Farm Fresh Foods Ltd

Jain Farm Fresh Foods Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Fails
WP:ORG. Just another start-up and page appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

It's new, and it's
WP:PROMO, still, I hit news google [51]

I clicked one in
Times of India, [52] Rs 402 crore comes out to a $64 million start-up. Impressive. However, TOI put this tag on the article :"This story has not been edited by timesofindia.com and is auto–generated from a syndicated feed we subscribe to." Hmmmm. Clicked on another [53] seems like a real article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- link #3 is clearly a republished press release, with content such as:

K M Trivedi, CGM - Rural Business, SBI, said: “The solution provides quick and easy credit access to farmers, thereby reducing reliance on informal money lending channels."

K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“With access to capital, farmers will be in a position to invest in the upcoming cultivation cycle resulting in opportunity to earn additional income.”

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely doesn't satisfy
Anup [Talk] 05:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as not only am I considering this speedy material, this is essentially PROD material and the nominator should've considered perhaps saving AfD time by using that instead; only if there are vulnerable chances of having this restarted, which in that case, it may happen, would we best need G4. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Gill

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

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

Delete: Fails
WP:NPOL. Has never been elected into office and not notable otherwise also. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Subject of article is not the main subject of any of the references. Seems to fail
WP:GNG.Killer Moff (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL. Apart from a few press releases in Punjabi newspapers, that too giving out official party line, no coverage of the person herself.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.
Anup [Talk] 05:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Juniorthon

Mumbai Juniorthon (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. Non-notable one time event that got media attention only due celebrity presence. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources, unfortunately, are almost solely blogs and zines; as per the nom, if the event hadn't been bolstered by a small celebrity presence, it would have received even less coverage. Most of that coverage fails
^Pocketed 08:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Coverage is insufficient per
WP:ORGDEPTH.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: As of now it fails
Anup [Talk] 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids

International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids (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 seems to fail
WP:GNG. In general, academic conferences do not generate much coverage about themselves, and are rarely notable. One can make arguments that some conferences are famous among scholars in a given discipline, but even setting aside that this is an argument to be debated case by case, I doubt that "Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids" is major, the title sounds like a very, very niche topics which in turns suggests this may be a for-profit scammy conference that uses Wikipedia as an ad. But even if this is a serious event, and let's assume AGF (I am not accusing anyone, just saying that for the name suggests a red flag to me), again - this fails GNG. On a final note, an expert may consider merging the seemingly reliably referenced section on "Scientific background" (which has nothing to do with conference proper) to some parent article like radiation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As Piotrus says, this is a very specialized topic and, indeed, the article states that only 100-120 people attend these meetings. That makes this a really small event and I don't see any evidence indicating that this might meet GNG (or any other guideline for that matter). --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this from the original author of the page. It is certainly not a for-profit pseudo conference, which you could easily have figures out by checking the conference proceedings published in an Elsevier journal which are clearly cited on the page (even if you do not have access to all the articles, the table of contents and abstracts are available to anybody). Regarding notability, the research field has probably 1000-2000 people worldwide working on this, because it is an important scientific background for the semiconductor and nuclear industries. Admittedly this was not very clear in the article, so I modified it now with this kind of motivation. On the other hand, as I am not a wikipedia editor, I am not sure if this is enough to meet the GNG, but I do note there are numerous other conferencesof comparable size and width of scope with wikiedia pages. Knordlun (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear
WP:USERFY the article in your userpage as a draft, you can then work on it and move it back to mainspace when you are done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. we need more articles on major conference series; the fact that we have so few is not reason to delete the ones we do have. But we shouldstart with the one that are the recognized most important ones in each subject, and there's no evidence of that here. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SRM innovaTion Software System

SRM innovaTion Software System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. Fails
WP:ORG. Company not notable and just another start-up doing regular business. Non notable award mentioned to give weight to the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a small start-up company, only one year old and seemingly only a few employees. There are literally 0 sources which talk about this company, not even Non-RS blogs or similar websites. Not to speak about actual coverage in RS sources. They say they have some large clients like Microsoft, but even if thats true WP:INHERITORG applies anyway. The article therefore fails WP:GNG generally and WP:NCORP specifically. The article was created by a single purpose account which has a sockpuppet investigation ongoing currently. Probably a WP:Promo article. Dead Mary (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied it, but the template was removed by the article creator and than a single edit IP - probably the same. An earlier article was deleted A7 on 7 May. I concur that I can find nothing, other than their own self-promotion - Arjayay (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ ·
✉ 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The Cold War Era (video game)

The Cold War Era (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With the lack of reliable sources proving its notability, it fails
talk) 11:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews or reports about this game in reliable sources can be found. The only reviews of this were in a few non-RS blogs (like "geekinsider"). Metacritic entries are also 0. Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:NVIDEOGAMES too. Dead Mary (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no point in further relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malmonde

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

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

Fails all criteria at
WP:BAND. It doesn't look like any of their albums or singles have charted, and I can't find any significant coverage (on the band or their albums) by independent, reliable sources. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to satisfy any criterion of
WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a complete absence of reliable sources when I searched. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like the claim of notability here is not enough to justify keeping the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Baqi Al-Omari

Abdul Baqi Al-Omari (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)

questionable notability - Prisencolin (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 01:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources in English. The only citations present here show his work was published; all other assertions of notability are unsourced. The Arabic-language wiki article has more citations but I can't describe if those are worth anything. Based on the text it's unclear if the subject passes
WP:AUTHOR. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep -- I do not read Arabic, but the Arabic WP has a much longer article. I am not qualified to comment on even whether he might be a notable poet, but I would have thought that the deputy governor of a vilaret (province) of the Ottoman Empire ought to be a high enough post for him to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry but
WP:V is important. I am literally unable to find a single source to verify the information. Should sources be found, this may be recreated. But till that time, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -- an unreferenced essay, with info that a good faith effort was unable to verify. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:AUTHOR. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Cable Television

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alfa Cable Television

(2nd nomination)

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

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

Fails
Yellow Pages arguments since. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I couldn't find any sources that indicate this unreferenced stub meets
WP:NCOMPANY. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an entirely unsourced
WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Article makes no claim of notability, and a bit of internet research doesn't yield any usable sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Piotrus, if you want the text to spin into an article about the crash, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Gridnyov

Nikolai Gridnyov (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 pilot in non-notable military aircraft crash. FiendYT ★ 04:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a candidate for a rewrite into an aircraft crash article (hehe, now that will mess up vote categorization). I think all aircraft crashes tend to be notable in practice, as they generate coverage. Sources for this may be in Belorussian, but I'd suggest checking with
WP:AIRCRAFT before deleting this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tragic but not notable in the long run. Not seeing how a "re-write" would give it substantial enough weight to pass GNG for a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I've located a reasonably detailed article from the official newspaper of the Balarus Ministry of Defense link, but this is a
WP:BIO1E situation. I don't think the crash is that notable either, even though the article states that the crashes of this type of aircraft are rare. I don't see independent notability for either subject here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer killed in an accident. Can't see any especial notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Death is tragic but Not notable member of the military....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Miss Michigan USA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Danyal

Kristen Danyal (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)

Having this page is just opening us up to biography of living persons guideline violations. I think we need to at this moment consider why we have much stricter rules on BLPs than on other biogrpahies. The problem is that people are more likely to have ill will, sources being used have not gone through as much vetting, and related factors. Newspaper articles will fly off the press in hours or less, while scholarly monographs spend years in development. The New York Times has published corrections on all sorts of things, including having called Pope John Paul II a "non-Catholic" Pope. In this case there are various gossipyn negative portrayals of Danyal that exist. Without any strong reliable sources giving the balanced indepth coverage we ask, if we have an article we are thretened with those types of sources. I have looked for aiddtional sources on Danyal and I can not find any that would meet the requirements towards passing GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:BLP1E). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:GNG with no notability. Otr500 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BLP concerns due to unreliable sourcing out there on Ms Danyal's "infractions". Redirect, after delete, to Miss Michigan USA, if appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Moist

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

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

Subject does not meet
WP:PROMO for the subject's business. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per
WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no references to reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Just another BLP without independent reliable sourcing. All references are either databases or affiliated with this performer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion.
Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy
Verifiability require that we base articles on reliable, third party sources. This article lacks them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kinda
WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Wahid Zaland

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

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

Fails GNG: Unable to identify any independent, reliable sources in any language offering more than a trivial mention. The given reference is an utterly trivial mention. —swpb^T 12:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. There are a lot of Google hits for the subject, especially if you search using the Farsi transliteration of his name (وحید زلاند), and there's an article about him on the Farsi Wikipedia. That said, the Farsi article is pretty short and cites the exact same source. I hesitate to give this deletion a full endorsement because we might be looking at this through
systemic blinders. I'd request a re-list, and if we get one, I'll go knock on WikiProject Afghanistan's door for help. A Train^talk 17:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodmont (Washington, D.C.)

Woodmont (Washington, D.C.) (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)

Failed PROD. Wholly unsourced and a Google search turns up no evidence whatsoever of the creation or existence of this neighborhood. Possible hoax; and badly fails
WP:GNG in any case. JohnInDC (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 04:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

This comment because there is a real, nearby neighborhood and I assumed that the neighborhood had been "misplaced" ~~(Woodmont, Bethesda, MD. Along Woodmont Ave. It's a real place, just not a legally defined place. Over the District line in Maryland.~~ [54]; [55]. D.C.'s Maryland suburbs are defined by place/neighborhood names of this sort. see for example Woodside (Silver Spring, Maryland). I'll add this one to our category. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)) [reply]

:*I high-handedly moved the page to Bethesda, Maryland. User:JohnInDC was right to be confused, article is about a neighborhood in Maryland, but the title read "D.C.". Needs sourcing, 2 articles I brought would make a start, so, probably keep and tag for sourcing.. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete While there is a Woodmont neaighborhood in nearby, this article is very specifically about Woodmont, D.C. agree with Nom that as best I know or can discover, no such place exists. I think that we can delete this, unless article creator @Juliaraven: or someone else can source it. I raise the possibility that it is not precisely a hoax, but, rather, a realtor attempting to add cachet to an area. Either way, I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In a search for sources, I found a Woodmont neighborhood in Arlington, Virginia, but that's not northwest DC. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and a Woodmont Place, SE, and Woodmont Country Club in Rockville, Maryland. This article is about none of those but rather about a specific subset of
Chevy Chase, DC residents who say they were unhappy about their association with that name, and therefore "seceded" to form a smaller, separate new neighborhood, "Woodmont". JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Per JohnInDC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Neutrality^talk 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Subject fails WP:NSPORT but passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kgothatso Montjane

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

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

I don't see where this person passes GNG notability. Maybe a 15 minute of fame bio, but mostly just passing mentions in articles. Certainly does not meet Olympic Project Guidelines or Tennis Project Guidelines or WP:NSPORT. No gold medals either. There's been a rash of these bios created lately. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk • mail) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep subject has represented her country internationally and won a national award as a top sportswoman in South Africa.--TM 02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – Definitely passes notability, just unfortunately is currently a stub. Carbrera (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources given, per Paralympic guidelines, per tennis Guidelines, this person is not notable. Someone is going to have to dig up something substantial other than what we have in order to convince a closer otherwise. You know how many minor league tennis players play internationally yet aren't notable? Countless thousands. There are also many many international events. For the Paralympics you have to win a medal to be notable unless GNG can be shown. Are you saying that just being in a lesser international event than the Paralympics makes one notable? If she medaled at the Paralympics I'd understand. We need a little more than "passes notability." We need proof that this athlete is the exception to the norm for WikiProject Olympics and Wikiproject Tennis. I admit there are sometimes exceptions, and that's fine. But there has been a rash of created articles on Paralympic athletes and they can't all be the exception. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user Mishae asked me to post this link and I said I would do so for the sake of fairness. SA Paralympic team jets off to Rio. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A basic search finds a host of third-party references so clearly meets GNG. Winning a gold medal is not a criteria. Greenman (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The question is, do the guidelines in
US Open. In the doubles she even was finalist in all 3 of those Grand-Slam tourneys too in both years (here a list: [56]). Those are officially ITF-sanctioned tournaments which take place parallel to the able-bodied tournament and give quite some prize money too. She also has won other high tier ITF tournaments like the Swiss or Belgian Open. She also participated in the World Team Cup two times. With all of that alone she would pass point 2 and 3 in WP:NTENNIS. She also was ranked as 5th best wheelchair tennis player in the world, which means something imo (currently still top 10). Even if WP:NTENNIS does not apply, there are plenty of big newspapers who report on her (especially from SA, even from before the paralympics). She was disabled sportwomen of the year of SA several times, which is a national SA award. Google news gives hundreds of results for her, she seems to be quite big in wheelchair tennis. So I think she passes WP:GNG too. I added a bit more info on her into the article. Dead Mary (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
A couple of things. Results do not make one notable. You can find results of high school tennis. There must be stand-alone articles in something substantial. WP:NTENNIS does not apply to wheelchair tennis. It says specifically to check Tennis Project guidelines for finer details. Tennis Project guidelines are as follows: Notability - "Wheelchair tennis tournaments: the four Grand Slam tournaments, the Wheelchair Tennis Masters and the Summer Paralympics are notable. Players are notable if they have won a Grand Slam tournament or end of year championship (in singles or doubles). Players are additionally notable if they were part of the winning team at the World Team Cup or won a medal at the Paralympics. See also WP:NOLYMPICS." Now, per sources given at the time of nomination there was nothing noteworthy at all, and she failed all the project parameters. While she may not be notable enough for Project Tennis, certainly she could meet GNG. I'll look at your new additions tomorrow to see if they change my mind. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I understand. Albeit I think the rules are little bit strict, as she is clearly a world class wheelchair tennis player and definitely not on "high school tennis" level. :P Anyway, I added a number of articles by notable national SA media which feature her on the article talkpage too (in addition to the sources I added into the article), to further strenghten my argument that she passes WP:GNG. Please look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kgothatso_Montjane Dead Mary (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on GNG. While failing all Project Guidelines, she passes GNG. I will speedy close this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/2013shslog.pdf?sfvrsn=2

[2] ttp://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/latest-news/470-professor-barbara-orser-named-among-canadas-most-powerful-women

[1]