Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Singh

Rick Singh (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.

Incorrect. For a political figure of purely "local to a single area" interest, such as a smalltown mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor or a county clerk,

WP:ROUTINE scope and volume of local media coverage that would be expected to exist for a person at that level. If they do not objectively pass NPOL by virtue of the office held, then the media coverage has to show them as significantly more notable than the norm for their field of activity, such as by nationalizing beyond the local media. Every single county appraiser in existence would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were all it took to get them there — but it's not a level of office at which we can or do extend automatic notability to all of them, so a county appraiser has to be individually demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other county appraisers before he can be deemed notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

By that argument, one would have to research the potential for GNG of hundreds of appraisers before you would be satisfied. GNG says nothing about showing someone is "more notable than similar people", it merely discusses in-depth articles. What is your evidence that there are "thousands like him?" other than an assumption that in-depth coverage is common for local politicians? I would argue it is not at all common, and that this level of press does show him as more notable, especially with the high profile of the cases he has dealt with (and in-depth articles about these focussing on his role). Usterday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an "assumption" on my part that local media coverage of local political figures exists; it's a simple, easily verifiable fact, because covering local news stories is what local media are for. It's not the case, for example, that some smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get covered by their local media while other smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get ignored by theirs; all mayors and municipal councillors and county officials always get coverage in their local media, and could always be claimed to pass GNG if local media coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all" property appraisers are from one of the largest counties in the US, and deal with hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and citizens like SeaWorld. It is a false equivalency to compare this person to, say, someone from central Arkansas or Iowa. The page has evidence of GNG, and you are indeed merely stating "everyone else will obviously have the exact same coverage", without providing evidence of why you believe this other than assumption. Anyhow, we are allowed to disagree here. I just don't see any actual evidence of your position here, and believe that GNG should not be read as you are reading it. Usterday (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not my own personal "reading" of GNG. It's not enough to be familiar with the simple letter of Wikipedia policy — you need to also have a familiarity with the reality of how GNG is actually understood and applied at AFD in those cases when its passage or non-passage is debatable. And one of those realities is that for a political figure at the municipal level of governance, GNG is not deemed to have been passed on the basis of exclusively local coverage — people at the county level of office, sometimes even right up to the actual county executive, are often deleted if there's no non-local coverage to show, even with as much or more local sourcing as you've shown here. That's not my own tendentious interpretation of GNG; it's just the facts of how GNG works for topics at this level of interest.

And according to List of United States counties and county equivalents, Orange County FL only ranks 33rd in the US by population — which is not a high enough ranking to make "one of the largest counties in the United States" a compelling exemption from having to satisfy the same standards of more-than-just-local prominence that any other county-level official would have to meet. Even the largest county in the entire United States, Los Angeles County, California, still doesn't hand an automatic inclusion freebie to its county assessor on purely local media coverage alone, if nothing extralocal can be shown to demonstrate that anybody outside that county needs to care.

I said the stuff about the SeaWorld lawsuit could be addressed in SeaWorld's article, for example. But it's not strong evidence that we need to maintain a standalone BLP of him separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not among the largest in US population; they are though in terms of revenue, and property values, which is what property appraisers deal with. That said, diminishing a State such as Florida as "merely part of the US" is strange to me. If the largest US county's assessor had this much press, in my mind, they'd qualify too. But the 1000s you referred to earlier, you are right, probably do not. More than that though, there is no wording in GNG that supports your reading of it. Point one is about "significant coverage", which this page has. Point two is that the sources must be reliable, which they are. Point three points to the use of non-primary sources, check again. Point four is that they are independent of the subject (sources that is), check again. Point five states that GNG is not a guarantee that something is notable. Are you arguing point five? That you don't believe GNG is good enough here? Otherwise, there is not "letter" in GNG that you can point to. Only the "Ignore all rules" aspect of the policy. There is, despite the protestations of many people on Wikipedia, nothing that dismisses local coverage from GNG. Even still, are you calling Forbes, the Orlando Sentinel, and NBC "extralocal" (a word not found in GNG to begin with). You keep stating "it's obvious" or "it's the way it is" to support your arguments, but that's not evidence for your point. Again, I agree to disagree, but am also happy to have an in-depth discussion of GNG if that's what you want. An AFD may not be the most appropriate place for that though. Usterday (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this again: the letter of GNG is one thing, but there are many ways in which it's still up for debate how GNG actually applies in actual practice. For that, you need to familiarize yourself with the actual corpus of AFD discussions on similar topics, to see where consensus lands on points of debate. I am not making up my own personal interpretations here; the actual established precedent at AFD is that purely local media coverage is not enough to satisfy GNG for a political figure at the county level of office.

Every single mayor of every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single municipal councillor in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single police chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single fire chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single school board trustee that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Unelected candidates for office would pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But our rules are intentionally designed to keep articles about smalltown mayors and smalltown councillors and smalltown police chiefs and school board trustees and unelected candidates out of Wikipedia.

The thing is, as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to keep in mind that our articles are highly vulnerable to getting misused: people routinely try to overwrite our articles about them with their own self-penned public relations puff bios, and other people routinely try to dirtwash our articles about people they don't like with

WP:POV

commentary. The only defense we actually have against either of those things is the oversight of other editors — but that only works on topics that are of broad reader interest, and fails to be effective when it comes to more limited-interest topics. In an article about a municipal or county-level official who's known only locally, and does not have nationalized prominence, an inappropriate edit can linger in the article for months because not enough people are actually seeing the article to notice that an inappropriate edit has taken place. I am not making this up: earlier this year, I actually came across an article about a county-level political official which was making the unsourced claim that its subject had been arrested for smuggling small children into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to rape and cannibalize them. Yes, it's a blatant BLP violation, and yes, I revdelled it right away — the problem, however, will be more evident when I reveal to you how long that claim was sitting unchallenged in our article, because no responsible editor had actually seen it before I did: three full years. Yes, we really did spent three years calling a local politician a cannibal pedophile, because his article wasn't generating enough traffic to get that inappropriate content noticed and dealt with.

We can't properly maintain an article about a topic that isn't generating a broad and relatively consistent volume of readership — which is one of the reasons why our rules around local political figures are designed to be much more restrictive about their includability than we are for statewide or nationwide officeholders. We have to protect ourselves from the possibility of getting misused as a PR platform, and we have to protect both ourselves and our article subjects from the possibility of the article getting misused as an attack-edit magnet — and when it comes to local politicians at the municipal or county levels, the only way we can do that is to not have articles about them except where they can be shown to have wider prominence beyond just one local area. I did not make this up myself as my own personal tendentious rule; AFD established a consensus around this.

Oh, and by the way: NBC's local affiliate in Orlando is not the same thing as the national news division of NBC News — the WESH reference is local coverage from WESH, not nationalized coverage from the NBC network. And the Forbes piece is not about Rick Singh, but just namechecks his existence and provides a brief soundbite from him in an article about something else. So no, that's not "coverage about him" either. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat's rationale (local coverage of a civil servant). Noting also that Usterday has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  CSD G5. Creator of page is a sock of Jeremy112233. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Retracted. Wasn't blocked until after page was created. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bringing a lawsuit against a company doesn't grant notability. We would have articles on anyone who had ever sued anyone for spilling their hot coffee on them when they wern't warned it was hot if we did. Amortias (T)(C) 19:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that a local assessor doing their job and challenging property valuations is entirely routine. Local coverage about such cases happens all over the country. The article seems to be to be highly promotional, perhaps written to influence a reelection. MB 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A county property appraiser needs to be notable for more than a single action to justify an article. His suit against Disney interests might be worth some sort of article, but that does not justify a biographical one on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another newly-licensed radio station which has not yet launched. As per numerous other recent AFDs, this is no longer a valid notability claim under

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the
  verifiable evidence to indicate this station is broadcasting, we can't have an article on it yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: Per
  WP:CRYSTAL. Unlaunched station, and we don't know if/when it will become notable. If/when it does, we can recreate the article. But it's not notable now. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: as per
  WP:Crystal. Should be made an article after it has been launched.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:36, 26 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.

Cultural Agency Theory

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

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

This article appears to be an attempt to post an academic journal article on Wikipedia. While no copyright violation can be found, the article appears to comprise

• Delete Even the firstmost source cited doesn't seem to contain the term? Seems like mostly heavy
  WP:SYNTH as mentioned by nominator. This is all I were able to find to use the term in our article's context: [22]. There is the general concept of agency theory, and the word "cultural" is sometimes latched on to that term. But these other uses that I were able to find were different from our article's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per WikiDan's explanation. It's pretty clearly ripped right from an academic paper with all the broken reference formatting left intact. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nom and editors above. (some academic journals now advise article authors to do self-promote their published articles on Wikipedia.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:)Just solved disambiguation problem. Now I'am working to simplify the topic to make it more understandable for the readers. Also references are made (to solve the problem "orphan page") on its all'agency theory page and adapt complex system (CAS). The problem of disambiguations is resolved. We look forward to your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadif89 (talk • contribs)

@

original research, which is not what Wikipedia is about. You need to find a more conventional venue to publish your article, such as a journal on social systems or some such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@WikiDan61:CAT is not a my personal idea. It is (at least) 10 years old. It is a successful paradigm not yet represented through Wiki: my proposal is to talk about it, refferring to the main systemic authors which contributed to the theory development (Beer, Schwarz, Yolles etc)

@WikiDan61: Cross referencing improved:

• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_systems_theory
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
• in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis 12:57, 21 September 2016

• Comment I'm coming around on this one. It's going to take a lot of work to make this article accessible, but I understand that the author has written a review of the topic rather than an original treatise on the topic. Since other editors have agreed to delete, I won't withdraw the nomination, but rather change my own position to weak keep. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:: @Jergling:: @E.M.Gregory: @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:

Dear editors, we are working a lot to fix the page on the light of your kind suggestions. Thank you for your comprehension. I had also the pleasure to share the page with your Yolles Professor in the person who has asked me to post this comment on his behalf:

This wiki entry is not an attempt to introduce new material to wiki. It is not original research and synthesis, since much of it comes from two books by Yolles in 1999 and 2006, plus additional publications over the last 9 years. This website is also a reflection of the book by Guo et al (2016) that defines cultural agency theory in most of its aspects, and is a summary of previous wok. The intention is to ensure that the new paradigm, which is now mature, is illustrated in terms of its antecedents. In particular, the work of Eric Schwarz, seen to be very important and almost lost to the academic world except through the work of Yolles and his colleagues, does need to be recognised historically. A tribute to the work of Schwarz has now also been entered into the wiki site, who died in 2015 with almost no recognition of the significance or potential of his work...a very sad state of affairs for such an important but overlooked academic.--Dadif89 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept. In fact, it never actually defines "Cultural Agency Theory"; instead, it lists what it CAT could potentially do (which is essentially nothing). It's mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors (Schwarz, Beer, Yolles), which does not indicate notability. The content of several sections is basically word salad which does not serve to describe the concept at hand, instead opting to say "the sky is blue" in as many ways as possible. Unsurprisingly, the freely available references are written in a similar manner.

In my opinion and outside of the scope of this AfD, it smells like postmodern bunk. It really gets my goat that there are academics out there throwing math- and science-isms around like this and and believing it's comparable to someone using actual math and science to advance

mimic - none of the cost and all of the reward. -Jergling (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

relativity theory or quantum mechanics. Complex subjects are often difficult to boil down to language accessible to laymen. I hope this article can be improved to meet that goal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I'm not trying to discredit cybernetics/social systems theory as a whole (although I'd appreciate it if you could give references to its applications in criminology). It's specifically the way this article (and the sources) are written. This content seeks to describe, rather than analyze or extend, a laundry list of systems concepts to no apparent end. It would be one thing if it were a list of assumptions building used to draw a logical conclusion, but instead it's just a list of assumptions and long names for simple concepts. I'm reminded of the slough of "nature inspired algorithms" that showed up here a month ago all describing roughly the same trivial and naive methodology and claiming to "potentially solve" the

Travelling Salesman Problem. -Jergling (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I have modified the opening to respond to comments about not defining what CAT is. In other words, I tried to explain in simple terms (even the average person to understand) a systemic theory --Dadif89 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article looks like a review of primary sources discussing cultural agency theory (CAT) and earlier theories it is based on. As such, it is a synthesis of primary sources that does not belong on Wikipedia, per
  WP:V article on the topic. Hence deletion seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"In response to the reviewers, a lot of changes have been made. For instance the insightful comment from the reviewer "nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept" has been addressed reflecting the uniqueness in the summary, and creating a definition in terms of its use. Another useful comment is that it is "mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors." While this is correct, one must question the significance of this comment. It is a paradigm supported by a group of people, with its own website (now indicated in the website): http://www.octresearch.net. However, its growing popularity is represented through an increasing download of its papers. For instance the paper cited by Dauber et al has had in excess of 5000 downloads and 27 citations in under 3 years. A new book defining the topic is also coming out this month published by Cambridge University Press. Two authors in the group also have "advanced standing" ReseearchGate ranking, principally due to interest in this work. An attempt to reduce the "word salad" has been made, including a tightening of references. Additional adjustments to the website include moving text from the dissipative systems section into the Schrwarzian modelling section where it belongs. More wiki and other links have been created for technical terms, and the text has been smoothed in an attempt to improve understanding. The text overall now properly conforms the the wiki model. Elaboration has also been made to the background of Schwarz, who should not be another lost hero."^[1] Dadif89 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI think is an important voice that was actually missing in wikipedia. The citations are correct. and it is well written. It should be kept on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf1974 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please keep it. The subject is important and the content is well written. Can be arobust reference for scholars and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.147.25 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: The page has been structurally modified trusting that, in this way, it can be maintained on wiki. the images with copyright issues were removed. And about secondary sources: it is coming out a book using CAT by Guo et al^[2] If the problem is with history and foundation, we can keep only the first sections: 1 What is CAT? 2 The Nature of Agency, considering this page as an important point of view in systemic theory, actually missing in wikipedia.Dadif89 Dadif89 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @

content fork which is undesirable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:INDEPENDENT criteria. Without independent reliable sources, no one can reliably write a neutral, verifiable article on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Pacific Union College

List of presidents of Pacific Union College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously, this is the sort of list we have quite often here - see Category:Lists of university and college leaders. This one has the additional benefit of providing information about a lot of people who, while presumably notable as college presidents, do not yet have a wikipedia article. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The position is defining, and the list can say a lot concisely. It makes sense to have this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can you explain precisely how you think this fails LISTN? 'Cause I just don't see it. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In view of the thumbnail biographies provided, this is a useful substantive article. Merging it to the article on the college would unbalance that article and is thus inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 25 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.

Catherine Karina Chmiel

Catherine Karina Chmiel (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)

Nearly 10 years ago this was one of my first prods. It was clsoed as keep, but with arguments that seem very obsolete now - mainly, she exists on Google. Well, that's not sufficient today, and it does not seem that in those 10 years she got any more notable - I don't see any reviews of her works, any awards, nothing. Pretty much a Tolkien fan artist, whose work was used in some books/etc., but that fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This article is a relic of a time when non-notable fan cruft survived on assertions like "the one topic that defines Wikipedia is Tolkien". Even then no one claimed that Chmiel passed the notability guidelines for artists, and she still does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 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. The later arguments for Keep appear to be stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Abse

Wilfred Abse (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 both

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A GS
  WP:GNG Xxanthippe (talk
  ).

• WP:PROF says "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied" (although I don't have much experience with that guideline so it may be that that part is ignored). Don't think h-index on its own is a good indicator of notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete – Not notable enough. CLCStudent (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see
  WP:JNN for an explanation of why that opinion will (or at least should) not be taken into account by the closer of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep at least as WP:AUTHOR, with over a 1,000 library holdings; he's not notable for WP:PROF of course, but the holdings are enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sources are about his more famous relatives and give him passing mention. Fails GNG - we don't have to beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source here describes Abse as a distinguished psychiatrist, a paragraph here in NPR, a brief mention here. His paper was cited by 21, this one by 11, wrote a book here printed 8 years after his death, a brief mention here, and cited here and this paper was cited by 55. A reference says equally high-achieving but very different brothers, the important psychoanalyst Wilfred Abse (1914-2005).... Meets the
  WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 23 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boot

Geoffrey Boot (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)

constant inaccurate changes being made Hanbev (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Geoffrey Boot[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 08:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per John. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Estate agent with an expensive hobby, but he was on UK TV recently in a programme about air racing. The deleted, uncited claims appear to be true and could be reinstated if anyone was interested enough to do it properly. I came here to work out why he was being called "Baron" in the programme—an unusual title in England—and I know now. Helpful.--103.250.141.213 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete Keep - Neither source confirms his notability, since one is local and the other has nothing to do with him. On the other hand, I don't mean to commit
  WP:ITSUSEFUL, but the IP editor above seems to suggest that this person might be notable for a sport or a historical example of someone who purchased the title of "Baron". I'll look into this. Jergling (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Update: He is a member of the Isle of Man House of Keys, which is a national parliamentary body. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this inherently passes GNG. See this news article: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/colourful-past-of-new-mhk-baron-boot-1-7462204 Jergling (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Gazette (a formal publication of UK central Government, BTW) entry indicates that his arms were awarded "with chapeau". Wikipedia again to the rescue: Barons in Scotland#Chapeau: It all depends whether his was a red hat (gules) or a blue hat (azure) to show whether his is an inherited title, with land, or one acquired by transfer. His 2011 success in the British Air Racing Champions Jubilee Trophy from the Royal Aero Club is documented here. The event is supposed to be modelled on the Schneider Trophy races, but they were historically important in aeroplane development. Nowadays only for hobby flyers.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:35, 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 keep. Seems like notability has been established on account of his role and the sources, which should probably be put to use in the article though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag

Pankaj Rag (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)

NonNotable Civil Servant. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of this routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him Uncletomwood (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete pending much more RS coverage; that one source is good, but we need more than a single interview for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I !voted keep in the first afd, and I stand by that decision.

• Firstly subject is not only a civil servant but also author of around half a dozen books, a notable aspect that nominator missed.
• Sources such as this one published by
  Indian Express
  definitely adds credibility to the claim of notability of subject.
• Additionally, full-page review of his book 1857: The Oral Tradition was published by almost all national mainstream media houses. It makes subject a strong candidate for inclusion per
  AUTHOR#3
  too.
• Sources: Outlook India, Times of India, Tribune India, Telegraph India, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Hindu2, DNA.
• There are few
  hindi sources, I was able to find. This one says, Pankaj Rag has written a book titled Dhuno Ki Yatra on Indian film music, which is an excellent work in this field. Another one
  introduces subject as the famous hindi poet and historian. I believe all these sources give a fairer idea on the question of notability of subject.
• And why there is not a trillion sources for his books published in Hindi languages, Wikipedia Project India has an essay at
  Anup [Talk] 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yet another significant coverage of subject as an author by Economic Times.
  Anup [Talk] 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Notable as Director-General of the National Archives of India, at least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Reference in multiple reliable sources present and as mentioned by Anup, subject is also author of multiple books.Pratyush (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Author of multiple books reviewed in reliable sources such as the Times of India and the Economic Times. Director of the National Archives of the second-largest nation on Earth. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 26 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) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Safe

One Safe (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 5 minute film that was produced by User:Gbnproductions who has sought to promote it and himself. Nothing notable about the film. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No reviews, no notable awards. Jergling (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless [24] can be considered a reliable source. The Geneva Film Festival ref is also blank. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could find no significant coverage of the film, or evidence of historical significance. However, per
  WP:NFO, a film doesn't necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if it has won a major award. This film has won a few it seems. If it was successfully argued that one of those awards was notable, then I would consider changing my vote to keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:36, 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) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Walker

Kevin L. Walker (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 subject of this article does not meet

• Delete. Lots of references here but none of them appear to be reliable -- even if they were, there's nothing in them to establish notability, per @
  Amatulic:. A Train^talk 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:TNT. This is strictly a vanity page with an overabundance of links to notable entities, in an apparent attempt to inherit notability from them. The tone is over the top, and this article should be promptly deleted. Possibly Salt as the article was previously deleted (in 2011). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Blatant over the top
  promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and Salt as this article has shown enough to suggest, regardless of improvements, none would actually be substantial and convincing, the works listed are trivial and anything else added is simply attempting to mirror and sugarcoat it. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 27 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.

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple (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)

Notability FlorenceJoyner (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While the temple may exists, it seems quite improbable to reliably source the contents of article.
  Anup [Talk] 16:46, 11 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.

Rodrigo Montt

Rodrigo Montt (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. This article is a collection of minor achievements, includingh being candidate to deputy two times and being councillor of a commune. It is also promotional. Warko ^talk 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a place the size of Lo Barnechea is not an automatic
  WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Notability: 1. It is councilor of a municipality, 2. He has been director of a major Chilean public institution as is General Directorate of Credit Pledgee (DICREP).
  Andya ^Andya 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(1) "Councillor of a municipality" does not pass

WP:GNG, but it is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be much better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete failed candidates for national legislatures are not notable for such, only successful ones. In general local municipal councilors are not notable for their position and nothing suggests that Monttt would be otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 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. While if you do a pure headcount there's a clear majority in favour of deleting, none of those "Delete" opinions even tried to address the reliability of the sources found by User:Cyphoidbomb. Odd changes from IP editors are not grounds for deletion. I suggest we come back in a few months and see if anything more has materialised, a second discussion might give a clearer picture. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil

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

)

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

Recently created, unreferenced article consisting only of a cast list and an infobox that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since opening this nomination a very brief lead has been added. However, neither it nor any of the other changes in the 46 subsequent edits have included any sources, whatsoever. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect until ____ happens - Hi Aussie, using the Indian news search tool, I find some detailed mentions like this and this. This source is generally considered reliable, although they seem to be reporting rumors about the series being based on a film, and that the series will be shot in Austria. Not a great choice for content, but in terms of multiple reliable sources presenting significant coverage, I'd say that the GNG threshold is probably met. As far as I know, the TV WikiProject doesn't have specific notability criteria akin to
  WP:UGC in my experienced opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I note that you've added some sources, which started to sway me but now we have anonymous editors removing the sourced content and adding unsourced claims in its place, so I'm not sure where to go. Maybe redirection with the redirect being indef semi-protected? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's up with that? Redirect could be an option. The claim that it has been moved to 2017 makes me a little more wary about maintaining the article, but homeboy didn't source that, so I dunno either. I'm starting to feel like erring on the side of "too soon" might be the way to go. It's hard to justify an article when there's very little being said about it. The series is supposed to air next month but nobody's written anything about it? Seems weak. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am aware of what this is. The channel unofficially declared that the show might not be broadcasted at all. So it can be just a hoax. It can be created later when things are more perfect. VarunFEB2003 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  Anup [Talk] 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree with
  Anup on this one. FalconK (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

)

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

Only one proper source - BBC - which on the face of it appears to partially convey notability, however it doesn't really. It's an archive of a radio show from 5 years ago and just mentions the venue name and nothing else. Other results on a search are run of the mill mentions of a hotel on the party isle. If anything, I would've thought Ibiza Rocks itself (the entire brand, not the hotel) would have its own article and this would've been a subsection on there. I'm surprised it didn't have its own article, but at the same time, I can't see anything that helps the hotel pass GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Source 1 Perhaps considered strong coverage. Cannot locate original but seems bordering on an advertorial?
2. Source 2 Seems to be about the festival rather than the hotel - although the hotel is mentioned in the headline
3. Source 3 Again mainly about the event rather than the hotel, but does mention the hotel as the venue. Editorial content by a non-notable travel company
4. Source 4 A competition giving away tickets to a gig at Ibiza Rocks. No mention of the hotel.
5. Source 5 False positive? Has words 'Ibiza' and 'Rocks' but separately, no mention of anything Ibiza Rocks related (within the free preview)
6. Source 6 Decent coverage of the project prior to its opening
7. Source 7 Industry publication. About the concept of Ibiza Rocks which I must again stress is a separate but linked entity to the hotel from a wiki perspective
8. Source 8 A rape took place at the hotel. It was mentioned as the location of the crime. Absolutely an incidental mention and not significant coverage
9. Source 9 Another false positive. Has Ibiza and Rocking in headline but no mention of Ibiza Rocks Hotel. Does mention another hotel, Pikes Hotel, part of the Ibiza Rocks brand but again separate. Has its own article.
10. Source 10 Mentioned as part of a journo's summary of their trip to Ibiza
11. Source 11 = not found
12. Source 12 False positive, again about the other venue.
13. Source 13 Mentioned in Billboard in small article about launch of Mallorca Rocks
14. Source 14 The event more than the venue is mentioned in the listing in this 677 page book of European party destinations. The book is not notable. If we said books like this convey notability, just about every licensed premises in the world will be fighting to put their own article on here.
15. Source 15 a repeat of 13

Whilst anecdotally I always expected the entire brand to be notable enough to warrant an article, I don't believe what I see for the hotel is sufficient having looked into it. I think coverage warrants an Ibiza Rocks umbrella article encompassing the event and venue, info on offshoots like Mallorca Rocks and info on Pikes Hotel. I just don't think there's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, especially in the absence of one for the brand and feel it would probably be better presented in the manner just described. (If I had the foresight and knowledge, I would've created the article, populated it, moved some info over and redirected.)Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to the brand and allow revision there. Both nominator and Rayman60 comment that in their opinion a page on the brand is warranted, and the hotel could be covered there. This is silly. Just move the stupid page and allow refocusing there. --doncram 21:40, 7 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.

Libido Blume

Libido Blume (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)

Band without any indication of notability per

@C.Fred:

Please check links and references in order to assess notability

CocoMusic (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)CocoMusic[reply]

Okay. Reviewing what's there at the time I nominated:

1. Dimatitis: Unable to assess, will assume there's at least a page on the band (and see #7).
2. Blogspot: Not reliable.
3. BJCEM: Does not give any in-depth coverage.
4. Mic: Album review.
5. Avopolis: Article is on Sigmatropic, not Libido Blume.
6. Postwave: Again, article is on Sigmatropic.
7. Rocking: Quotes wholesale from Dimatitis.
8. Second Avopolis cite: duplicate of Rocking.

So, I think we have exactly one source, and it's not clear from the article or from the soures that the band meets

WP:GNG can be looked at as a reason for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 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 redirect to Sly Cooper#Characters. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sly Cooper characters

List of Sly Cooper characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Another long, long list of non-notable characters from a video game series, written from an in-universe style. Unsourced. A quick search on the custom

• Merge There are really only four principle characters that are in the series, the rest nearly all one-shots that can be briefly mentioned in the specific games. These characters can be easily summarized on the series page. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. 831⁄2k of unsourced prose... incredible. Like all other articles, there are no sourced claims to independent notability of the character set here. Cover it in the character section of its parent article and expand summary style. Can always merge from the page history as needed. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or redirect. There's really no need to keep any of the content in a case like this, so either outcome is fine. Without sources to establish overall notability for the topic, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. The characters do not appear particularly notable outside of the series, and sourcing is virtually nonexistent. There doesn't appear to be much to merge here, as the major/secondary characters are already covered in that article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom.
  Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a list of characters from notable fictional franchise. As such, the topic is notable because the parent article is notable. This is not "inherited" notability, as the list could be appropriately merged into the article... but there's simply no need to do so. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Im confused. Your stance is literally the definition of "inherited", and then you end it with "but I'm not talking about it being inherited". Please explain how it's notable, without any third party coverage, without its notability being inherited from the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inherited would be The Force Awakens not being automagically notable since Star Wars was. A list of Star Wars: A New Hope characters (ignoring the fact that that's a clearly notable list for purposes of an example) is a subset of the topic 'Star Wars', and per
    WP:SS could be merged into that article and exist there using its coverage to demonstrate notability. There's a fundamental difference between "Is an element of..." and "Is a successor to..." and fictional characters lists have the same notability as the works in which they appear, but are simply put into their own lists for readability's sake. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Even ignoring the fact that that still sounds an awful lot like splitting hars to avoid an "inherited" issue, there's still issues with your argument. Splitting per
      WP:SS is recommended upon a particularly large article size. The Sly Cooper parent article is barely at 50K including formatting text, and the character list info, if properly written, would be far far shorter. There's no size reason for this to be split off either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Redirect- per nom. It is simply not true that a character list article is automatically notable if the parent work of fiction is. Even if that were so, this article is completely unsourced, chock-a-block full of badly written excessive trivia, and written in an in-universe style. There is no content here that could be conceivably kept in any form. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The characters don't receive coverage themselves. It's almost entirely wikia-style plot rehashing, so I don't even see anything worth merging that isn't already present in the game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & then redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. Unreferenced essay and original research, with no secondary sources covering this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 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) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Net Timoney

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

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

Does not pass

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A
  WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:UPANDCOMING. The subject graduated from art school two years ago. Please! Bearian (talk) 18:46, 26 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) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E Sharp (programming language)

E Sharp (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability, no outside sourcing, and a quick Google search didn't bring up anything that didn't appear to be scraped from here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just another non-notable abandoned software project. I can't find any secondary sourcing, code.google.com is shutdown and the project never migrated elsewhere. Looking at the commit history it was never updated after it was uploaded. —
  Strongjam (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No refs except to the project's Google Code page, which seems not to have been updated for years. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:35, 26 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.