Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne LaFleur (artist)

Suzanne LaFleur (artist) (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 demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though the deletion rationale is rather harsh considering there is a list of awards and LaFleur claims to have exhibited internationally (well, Kuwait). However, I can't find any reviews of her exhibitions online, or coverage about her (apart from a photo in Broadway World). The awards don't seem to be significant, from non-notable galleries/museums. This article was declined as a draft at AfC but the author decided to publish it anyway. Fails
  WP:NARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: agree with
  too soon as they say. Quis separabit? 23:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom, fails notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after relisting DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tayback

Tom Tayback (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)

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Really very little reliable source material to be found on this fellow, other than brief mentions as a cast member on a handful of films of dubious notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very limited coverage and what's available is entirely local--I'm personally in favor of local sources counting toward notability, but hometown coverage alone does not suffice to satisfy
  WP:WHYN's requirement for a breadth of sources sufficient to create a balanced portrayal. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Signature weapon

Signature weapon (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 merely a

• Move and re-formulate/refactor as
  List of signature weapons (maybe starting it out as Draft:List of signature weapons until reformatted), which would be an interesting, notable, and valuable list article. There are already about 20 great examples in the article already, easily cited, and they would make the basis of an interesting and useful list article. Softlavender (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I wouldn't be opposed, but only if it was draftified until said list was not unreferenced cruft. Otherwise, I think
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • "Fictional weapons" is not the same as "signature weapons", and many or most signature weapons are not fictional but real weapons. In addition, categories and list articles do not preclude each other; both are recommended when a category reaches a certain size and/or particular items in the list do not have dedicated articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to list per the excellent suggestion by Softlavender. I think this article is a perfect candidate for a list, and I agree that there are already many examples in the article that can be used. Agree also that in many cases the weapons will not be fictional and will therefore not present a significant overlap with a list of fictional weapons. In addition, a list such as this should (hopefully) be easier to curate, given that signature should convey some degree of significance/notability. Cthomas3 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Move I agree with the move, it would be easier to navigate as it expands. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per the above conversation as I agree that would be the most valuable/beneficial answer for this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fowlie

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

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

This article is about a person with a youtube channel who is not notable. The article includes references to primary souurces and unreliable websites. Notability has not been established. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Has appeared on multiple TV shows and been on television many times Thursby16 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Fowlie's notability seems established by coverage of him and his web series in HuffPo, The Advocate, and other reliables sources (three of which were removed by the nominator as citation overkill, which is fine, but I've restored them to the Ext links section of the article, as they speak to his notability). Primary sources (well actually, pretty much only one, YouTube) are only used to cite works in his filmography table, and based on edit summaries I believe the "unreliable website" the nominator is referring to is Facebook, which is used to cite Fowlie's hometown, an acceptable practice per
  WP:SELFSOURCE.— TAnthony^Talk 22:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP - As the creator of the article I believe this article focuses on a rising star in the comedy and acting world as well as a prominent figure in LGBT culture in the 2010s. His work with the Huffington Post as well as his acting roles with the Disney Channel and HBO should be enough merit for keeping the article with additional citations that I'd be happy to research and provide. Scott218 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The NEWS link above brings up many articles that could be added to the article about the "So Long, Boulder City" show, from People, HuffPost, Variety, LA Weekly, etc. Robman94 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nova bomb (Andromeda)

Nova bomb (Andromeda) (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)

Pure fiction cruft without any notability. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, definitely fails

WP:NOTPLOT. This isn't Andromeda Wikia. If I could see some RSes showing that the concept of a "nova bomb" has reached outside of the Andromeda universe and into the mainstream, then maybe. But as far as I can tell, this is not the case. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No merging or redirection, I cannot imagine anyone typing this into the search box. Ifnord (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Winters

Jason Winters (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 looks like pure puffery to me.
  Tell me all about it. 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree all very puffy,and seems to be written from an insiders viewpoint.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG Reads like a work of fiction, full of unlikely incidents that are not backed by reliable sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I like the repeated statements of "not verified by outside sources", which is just a wee bit of a red-flag. Delete per above comments - very puffy biography that fails to meet notability after all self-published and non-reliable sources are disregarded.
  Ravensfire (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

List of artifacts in Philippine history

List of artifacts in Philippine history (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)

Recent page creation by banned

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JournalmanManila Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Do we delete articles just because they are created by a sock? There is quite a lot of good, well-sourced content here. For consistency with other national archaeology overview articles we should probably rename to Archaeology of the Philipines and clean it up a bit (it looks like there are some copyvio issues), but it seems a shame to lose it altogether. Also, I don't see a tag on Hunter05, are they a confirmed sock? – Joe (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Split. Not just because it's created by a Sock (no further comment on that for now, because I haven't reviewed the evidence), but because it ignores some fundamental problems of "Philippine" history - which is that it really wasn't "Philippine" history per se before the 1500s. Ask any historiographer or anthropologist and they'll agree that "Philippine" history presents a patently false sense of politico-cultural continuity. The presence of the article alone is a POV-push issue. An article like this is important, yes, but it really should be reconstituted as (1) Lists of Artifacts from separate ethnolinguistic regions (The Sulu archipelago, Mindanao, the Visayas, the Bicol region, the Tagalog Region, Central Luzon, The Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley and the Cordilleran peoples); plus (2) a list of artifacts from the prehistory of the Philippine archipelago (to cover the early habitation and migrations period); (3) a list of artifacts from Philippine Colonial History (I will argue that this is also needed); and possibly (4) a list of artifacts from Philippine Contemporary History (say, after Philippine independence from the US. I'm a bit more iffy on this, but this includes things like Ninoy Aquino's bloody bulletproof vest, remnants from the Magsaysay plane crash, etc.) I agree that the content here should be kept as much as possible, but organizing it this way is just... misleading. - Alternativity (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Additinal comment - Upon considering more options, I now support the idea of renaming this as Archaeology of the Philipines, although I still feel it needs to be reorganized to avoid POV/synthesis issues, and rewritten to remove nationalist peacock terms. - Alternativity (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there was no relation between the reliability and sock puppetry, and the article was proven to have a valid references and it had passed the categories of being an encyclopedic, all what we need is to review for if theirs a copyright or neutrality issues. (122.54.197.173 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)) — 122.54.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since when a wikipedia article serves as an artifact /archaeological findings
  Persia is kind of stretching too far and went out of historiography discipline. But then again how I'm not surprise.., since this article was created by a sockpuppet with an agenda to rewrite Philippines history through creating a pseudohistory. Some of of these artifacts or findings is maybe valid, so with its references. However, considering the notorious bad practice of this sockpuppet to provide false refs; which providing a reference that look so valid, but after careful examination, mention nothing about the claimed section. I do not have the time and patience to examine each of these refs, but then again.., this subject is not suitable to be composed as a wikipedia article. So please delete it already. —  Gunkarta  talk  15:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Gunkarta: See Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology of and Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology in. Of course it shouldn't be comprehensive catalogue, but an outline of notable discoveries is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Still did not convince me to keep this article. Plus thanks to Hunter05 and Dashcam that has invested their interest, this article has already developed into a confusing jumble of Philippines artifacts list, that some of them are even too obscure and unclear to be categorized as archaeological findings and lack of notability. Also some parts contains dubious claims with questionable refs, especially that "Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" table that links Philippines to all that faraway civilizations including Ptolemaic Kingdom. Plus by inventing that obscure term "Archaic epoch" (?) of the Philippines history. Previously I've been interacted and witnessed the work of this JournalmanManila sockpuppet aka User:Hunter05 that created this article. I strongly believe he does not respect copyright, the scientific approach on writing history, nor possessed a required discipline in historiography, as he often spinning to fringe theory, inventing pseudohistory and resorting to spurious claims, even falsifying refs while editing to back up his claims. Possibly motivated by undue nationalistic agenda to rewrite and represent the history of his country in a more glorious light, he often invented a pseudohistory that despite the scarcity of archaeological findings, he describes pre-Hispanic Philippines as a strongly Indic-influenced civilization that somewhat in par with Angkorian Cambodia and ancient Java. Delete this article, and create a new "Archaeology of Philippines" article from scratch, free from all that rubbish, spurious claims and false refs, is more make sense and economic than trying to sort through or try to make sense of all this jumbled up information. —  Gunkarta  talk  23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep i find out the list of references are comes from academic sourcing, even the external links are valid there are mentioned NO fabrication or pseudo-history so far in any stated items, because of supporting references and passed as encyclopedic (
  WP:Source
  ) despite of it was created by a sock good for this is ; we should review and correct the terms of some stated artifacts instead

Suggestion considering of the Academic sourcing, I support of renaming it as Archaeology of the Philipines or Archaeology in the Philipines instead of deleting this and check the page for the clean up in shorter terms the page is legit but we should check and clean this up, we need to be sure of its accuracy for the improvement.(Pricedelink (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) — Pricedelink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Potential keep but rename somehow. We have a series of articles on Philippines history and prehistory, but having something by way of overview is also potentially useful. This has the potential to become a useful list article. Whether or not some of the content is FRINGE is not an AFD issue: that can easily be removed by editing. As to the target, I am not sure that "archaeology" is right. Unless some one indicates that "archaic" is a term that is used, I would suggest "medieval" instead. In some Nordic countries "prehistoric ends at a similar date. I do not think it is so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start entirely afresh I have already expressed my position regarding the organization of the article in my comments above. I've had to think a lot about the usability of the sources in this article and in light of the suggestion of
  Archeology of the Philippines article. Such an article, not being just a list, would be able to put the listed artifacts in context. I'd like to participate in writing that article, but I'll await the community's pleasure regarding next steps, first.- Alternativity (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

An addendum: Please note that the sockpuppet in question has had a history of borrowing citations from other wiki pages and using them to assert "facts" which aren't in the original. (I have particular concerns about his past use of Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials, and of Bellwood's "Pathos of Origin" (Paths of Origins - he doesn't even bother to get the title right.) .Gunkarta and I have both had to undo some of the damage done in the past, and the cost he is referring to is of reviewing the article line by line, and checking not only if the fact is in the reference cited, but whether it has been misrepresented through cherrypicking or through peacock terms and weasel words. To be fair, the sockpuppet has indirectly led to the improved coverage of precolonial Philippine articles. But that's because s/he keeps manufacturing fringe articles so fast that other editors are forced to come up with orthodox articles, lest the coverage of Philippine prehistory and early history be made up completely of fringe theories and nationalist/postcolonial mythologies. - Alternativity (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Alternativity has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune , as
  WP:Deletion (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC))[reply
  ]

Suggestion rename it to Philippine Archeology (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)) — 124.104.94.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Totally support
  Talk:Kingdom of Tondo that finally revealed that JournalmanManila, Theseeker2016, Parashurama007 and Hunter05 are actually the same person. I started to suspect that those IP adresses above: 124.104.94.92, 122.54.197.173, and Dashcam might be the same person, which ultimately User:Hunter05 and JournalmanManila. —  Gunkarta  talk  14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note to closer: Gunkarta has already !voted above. – Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the article is deleted, could it be copied to my userspace please? I'd like to try and salvage at least some of the content for other articles. – Joe (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please see this latest account edit also to make sure it is not the same IP: this edit. Shaded0 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - Expressing support for Joe's request. Given the tainted slant of the text, I still think a total restart is more feasible than having to do a line by line revision for source verification and POV/Neutrality issue resolving. But it would be useful to have a draft version of this temporarily stored somewhere. While the text is oftentimes suspect and usually weasely-peacocky, the sources merit evaluating and checking one by one, and the best way to do that after a delete is to have a temporary draft. That said, may I ask where the community thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the organization of an Archaeology of the Philippines article? That topic will require a lot of input since anything earlier than the 1570s has to deal with the separate cultures and polities plus socio-technological eras. (Some combination of the proposed outlines of Scott (1994) and Jocano (2001), I suppose? I don' remember if Joaquin (1986) or Samuel Tan proposed anything specific. I'd have to check...) Anyway. Eager to get to work on that, but not sure if the List of artifacts in Philippine history talk page would be the right place, considering its afd nom. - Alternativity (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While one shouldn't toss out an article simply because of the sockpuppet origins, the behavior here reminds me of the parable of bad fruit coming from a bad tree. And both the tree and fruit here are rotten. Delete and start over. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to User:Joe_Roe's perferred space. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article has been expanded from a dicdef since the AfD started and the discussion has moved from a preference for redirecting towards one for keep/merge, so I'm closing the AfD to remove the ugly red box from it since clearly there is clearly no consensus to delete. The decision of whether to keep the content as a standalone article and expand it, or merge it into another article, is one that can be made through discussion on the article talk, without a deadline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious assimilation

Religious assimilation (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)

Dicdef, no sources found, article untouched since 2009 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to Cultural assimilation. Religion is a part of culture, and is ultimately assimilated like any other part. bd2412 T 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cultural assimilation per bd2412. We could perhaps add the second and third paragraphs from our article there, but only if they were sourced, which they aren't. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Distinct enough from cultural assimilation that it merits its own article. The fact that it's stubby at the moment doesn't keep anyone from fixing it--nothing here strikes me as OR, more like not much more than DICTDEF... Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for this term and found relatively few uses, but did find an example like this [1] that begins by specifying it as the religious aspect of Cultural Assimilation. The term Religious Assimilation seems to be always accompanying Cultural Assimilation. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It is a longstanding practice to merge stubby content into supertopic articles, and then break it out again when the material is sufficiently expanded within the supertopic. Merging now would not bar breaking it out into a separate page if the necessary expansion occurs. bd2412 T 20:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sorts of organizational decisions are really best left to article editors to work out. ~Kvng (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cultural assimilation; no sources have been presented at this AfD to indicate that the subject is independently notable. None are present in the article, and my searches have not produced anything amounting to SIGCOV. The term gets used link, but it's unclear whether it's been a subject of study independent of cultural or ethnic assimilation. No prejudice to restoring to a full article if can be done with sufficient RS. A redirect works for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not redirect. I've narrowed the definition to avoid the
  WP:DICDEF
  problem (syncretism is a separate concept). I've also added a major reference (a Princeton University doctoral dissertation) that makes the point that dominant cultures treat religion differently from other aspects of cultural assimilation. A specific focus on religious assimilation, documented in sources, warrants a separate article—even though of course the more general concept of cultural assimilation will be discussed, if only to distinguish religious assimilation as an important special case.

There is a severe problem with access to sources due to copywrong and paywall issues, as well as old paper-only documents. For example, I cannot use the following, simply because I have no access to it:

Farr, Eugene (1948). Religious assimilation: a case study of the adoption of Christianity by the Choctaw Indians of Mississippi (ThD dissertation). New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The same is true of the books on Rwanda and on Eastern European Jews that show up at the top of the Google Books search. Nevertheless,

WP:NEXIST

states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." By that standard, the warrant for a separate article on this topic should never have been in the slightest doubt.

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've added two more references, with inline citations and further discussion of the relationships between religious assimilation and other aspects of cultural assimilation. Although still a stub, this article already establishes notability.

—Syrenka V (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per recent article improvements. Enough sourcing to establish notability independent of Cultural assimilation. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to cultural assimilation, with no prejudice against a selective Merge. Of three sources in the current version, two are unpublished. A dissertation and thesis can be good sources, but (a) both talk about this in the context of cultural assimilation, and (b) in the context of this article, both are primary sources, the point of which is to make a novel claim. When a dissertation is published and/or other people start to take up that idea is when Wikipedia covers it. Cultural assimilation is a huge subject, too, so I'd want to see a great deal of sources to justify a stand-alone article for a subtype. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off separate treatment of subtypes, particularly those seen in the sources as significantly different from the general case. As noted above, there are many more sources behind paywalls; these are the ones I could easily access on the timescale of an AfD. Of the sources cited, only LeMay 2010 is being used as a primary source, and then only as an example to show that a particular kind of viewpoint is in fact held by some researchers—not to attest to the validity of that viewpoint. Both citations from Connor 2010 are from discussions of the prior literature, and Yang and Ebaugh 2001 is likewise used to attest to the views of Will Herberg and other religious pluralists in the earlier literature.
    WP:PRIMARY
    : "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." Except for LeMay 2010, these sources are being used as secondary.

The sources cited are all unequivocally published by Wikipedia's standards, which are very broad.

WP:SOURCE

including footnote 6:

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.

Availability on ProQuest or on Sophia University's website would definitely count.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

, explicitly allows use of publicly available, completed doctoral dissertations.

—Syrenka V (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the topic of cultural assimilation is an argument for, not against, splitting off I think I get what you mean by this, but what I mean is, effectively

WP:NOPAGE

. It's a minor subtopic of a subject we already cover.

Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". We're not looking for verifiability, which is what this sense of "published" means (literally everything on the Internet meets this definition). We're looking for notability and the reliability of sources to establish notability. That requires sources to be published in the sense of a third party determining that the content meets standards for quality and has merit/is worthy of notice. That's why it matters if an article about a subject was on someone's blog or in the New York Times. Granted, a dissertation is better than a blog, and I think it could be used in the article, but I don't think it contributes much to

WP:GNG unless it's been published (in the sense of a press). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:N

: "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". "Is", not "may be". A generalized preference for merging stubs goes against the GNG, except in the case where they cannot be expanded for lack of existing sources. And "minor" is not a reasonable description of the scope of the topic by any stretch of the imagination, as even the few sources already in use demonstrate, let alone the many others easily found by search but not easily accessible as full text.

WP:NOPAGE

also mentions cases where merging with a larger topic provides context needed to understand the more specific topic, or where many similar topics are better handled together because more or less the same things need to be said about all of them. In this case, even the very brief stub I have (re)written already demonstrates that there are fundamental differences between the sociology of religious assimilation and that of other forms of cultural assimilation. A treatment of religious assimilation that considers it first and foremost as a subcategory of cultural assimilation would, by that fact alone, be actively misleading.

As to reliability of dissertations as sources: although

WP:RS does mention citation in the literature as further confirmation of the reliability of a dissertation; Google scholar shows that Connor 2010 has been cited 7 times

.

—Syrenka V (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  π, ν) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I appreciate the complimentary remark as to content quality! I could do better yet if I had more expertise in interpreting the hundreds of pages of Connor 2010, and access to more of the existing paper or paywalled sources—indeed, a real sociologist with in-person access to a large university library could probably make a Featured Article from this little stub, whose modest size conceals a vast topic. Because of that topic size, however, as well as the very different sociological behavior of religious assimilation versus other forms of cultural assimilation that I mentioned above, I continue to oppose merging with Cultural assimilation.

—Syrenka V (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not opposed to a keep.

π, ν) 03:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - This article has been much improved by Syrenka V so that it now is sufficiently referenced. Distinct enough from cultural assimilation to merits its own article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

A local municipal hall. Not sure "first air-conditioned" hall in Kerala is enough to warrant inclusion. Fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes

• REDIRECT to
  WP:GNG. The sources mentioned within the article, mentioned above by the editor, and otherwise available through my research, all have insignificant one line mentions about the hall. The only two sources (both from the Hindu newspaper) that mention this hall more than one line pertain to one which says that rents of the hall have increased; and the other that says a statue of C. Kesavan was unveiled in front of the hall. That's it. Lourdes 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Commenting on this overdue for close AFD. It seems likely to me that the subject is notable though the article is no masterpiece, typical of articles on many structures in India. If this was all we could find on a similar hall in New York City, where online access to newspapers information is much more robust, I might feel differently. I would also be comfortable with a no consensus close.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to C. Kesavan. I disagree that it's notable enough for an article of it's own, even if it were in New York I doubt it would be the subject of news articles. Being mentioned in an article ("The meeting will be held at...") isn't a claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A funny manhole cover could get an article if its in New York. I agree that being mentioned in an article is insufficient by itself.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Delete - per WP:GNG, "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source". - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kollam Cantonment as the town hall is situated there. I disagree with the other redirect targets. Buildings can change names but their location is usually fixed. Merging the useful information to the cantonment article seems to be a reasonable solution. I am not in favour of having a separate article because there are not enough references to justify one.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamLinker, hope you're doing well. I feel that when a person types the term "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall", they're not intending to read about Kollam Cantonment. It is more pertinent to redirect them to a page on C. Kesavan so that they can get a background of the person on whom the hall is named. If a page on C. Kesavan had not existed, I would have been okay with a redirect or merge to Kollam cantonment. But we do have a page on Kesavan that is appropriate. With respect to your contention that buildings may be renamed in the future (and therefore we should only merge to Kollam cantonment), that's a future premise that can't be predicted. If the building gets renamed in the future, we could revisit the redirect or create a separate article. But basing a merge suggestion on the premise that the building's name may be changed in the future, is perhaps incorrect. Warmly. Lourdes 04:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your answer. However, as I stated in the first sentence of my vote, my reason for redirecting it to the cantonment is because the building is a part of the kollam cantonment. Regardless of the name, it should be merged to the next larger geographic entity which contains it. This is for consistency with other similar articles on artificial geographic features. In this particular case it is a community hall which is connected more to the immediate community in the locality. Btw, in India, buildings are often named after politicians even though the politicians may not have any significant connection to the building. In such cases, it seems weird to redirect it to the article of the person. A Mahatma Gandhi road in X city should redirect to the transport section of the article about x and not Mahatma Gandhi.--DreamLinker (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying DreamLinker. So in other words, if an article like Gandhi Smriti were a redirect, then as per you, it should be a redirect to New Delhi rather than to the individual in whose name the museum exists... (iffy, as per me) I can see the advantage of placing details of the hall in both the C. Kesavan article (he's not one at Mahatma Gandhi level and his relevance seems to be local) and in the Kollam cantonment article. Therefore, would you consider changing your !vote to "Redirect to Kollam Cantonment while Merging contents to both C. Kesavan and Kollam Cantonment". What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 11:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example you quoted is not exactly analogous. Gandhi Smriti is a museum dedicated to Mahatma Gandhi. (Interestingly, I had no idea it was called Gandhi Smriti btw. I have always heard it being called "Birla House"). On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person. I would simply merge and redirect to the Kollam Cantonment article. I agree with you that a sentence or two should be be mentioned in the C. Kesavan article. (I will just add it myself). Thank you for your reply and proposing a good solution.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DreamLinker. You say: "On the other hand, this community hall is not a building dedicated to preserving the memory of the person." The building is named "C. Kesavan Memorial Municipal Town Hall". There is a notable statue too of C. Kesavan placed in the building premises. As much as an observer like me would understand, the town hall is named so purely to preserve the memory of C. Kesavan. I'm not sure I understand you correctly. At the same time, I'll extend my efforts and place the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment so that the Afd can be closed as a redirect to Kollam Cantonment or to C. Kesavan; I'm okay with either. Thanks. Lourdes 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional note: I've already merged/added the contents of this article to Kollam Cantonment and to C. Kesavan. Thanks. Lourdes 00:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Owensboro High School. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Curtain Players

Rose Curtain Players (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)

Drama group which fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: That Owensboro High School does not mention it sounds like a reason to merge this article there, not delete it. There seems to be quite a number of mentions of this club in older newspapers but indeed no substantial coverage. Regards SoWhy 06:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Owensboro High School per SoWhy. Ifnord (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Printing House

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

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

doesn't appear to pass the

• Delete, though well done for keeping going for over 50 years, there's nothing in this short article to suggest what might make this company notable. I can't find anything indpendent online. Fails
  WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see the sourcing either, I'm afraid--in Books or in News. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No indications of notability - fails GNG and
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barasat Central Bus Terminal

Barasat Central Bus Terminal (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per
  WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Per the nominator. Wefihe (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brick god sosa

Brick god sosa (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 demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was deleted in May, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick God Sosa. Edwardx (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he's an 18 year old who doesn't appear to have any songs that have charted and has no coverage in mainstream sources. Clearly
  π, ν) 22:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple feat

Apple feat (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)

Hoax? I can find references to the "apple feat" of Cuchulain, juggling nine apples, but this "apple feat", which involves throwing the specially prepared brains of enemies, seems to be much harder to verify (it may appear in some books I can't access, but even then it has to be pretty obscure, much more so than the Cuchulain apple feat.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  10:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - That there was an (almost entirely notional/mythical) "warrior feat" called the "apple feat" is somewhat documented. Mainly in 19th century Gaelic revival works that cover some of this folklore. However, as noted, much of what we see in this article is uncited (and potentially therefore invented). I would recommend that this be deleted. On the basis of
  WP:NOTDICTIONARY (just because a term was used at some point, we don't need an article for it). If required, this concept can be covered (as it is in the sources) as a passing reference in a broader article. Like Irish folklore of similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete insufficiently sourced, in addition to everything said above.
  π, ν) 22:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Yiding

Luo Yiding (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)

Appears to be (at least based on a cursory search) a non-notable author. Unless notability is established, delete. (It should also be noted that this was pretty much a single-editor article, and that editor has only edited this article and the related article listed below.) Nlu (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for deletion because it is the series of books that Luo wrote, which also (seems to me) to lack notability, independently or otherwise.

Words on the Scenery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Nlu (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I also submitted a deletion request at Chinese Wikipedia, for the same reasons. If anyone can establish notability, please also note it at the Chinese Wikipedia discussion if possible. --Nlu (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Luo Yiding as "the diary of the painting," the author is gradually being concerned about, Because his work is unique and true, but also involves the deep cultural exchanges between Europe and Nepal, hoping not to remove these unique small works of art and author entries just for the reason of attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsonlord (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both; not notable.
  talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Regrettably, because the illustrated travelogue did receive excellent reviews on douban.com. Unfortunately, user reviews do not count as a reliable source, and References 2-4 aren't independent (Amazon.com listings and
  WP:BKCRIT, and try as I may I can't find "two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The zh.wiki articles have already been deleted. Timmyshin (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Catholic Immigration Society

Calgary Catholic Immigration Society (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)

Promo for an organisation of dubious notability, unsourced self-serving claims, dodgy refs even where they exist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Local run-of-the-mill religious nonprofit of no national or international notability. Promo. Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SoftLavender, fails
  WP:MILL and GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In2Musica

In2Musica (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 company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The are no reliable sources in the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an 'in-house' vanity label. No indications of notability or significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AEIT

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

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

A search only turned up the college's own website, which is filled with placeholder text. Does not satisfy

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator, fails to meet
  WP:ORGDEPTH.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:ORG. No suitable independent reliable reference found. Tecrum (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not notable; clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha

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

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

There is no significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arunzyz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Robertcarter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Contributerdc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Keep per nom, this article contains relevant information of technology. I think the technology on which they are working is one of the best in terms of cyber space.Although the notability of the article is less , which can be increased later on. I had heared about him a lot about his free training on digitalization and cyber awareness in rural parts of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertcarter (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Robertcarter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Jha Should not be deleted. Vaibhav Jha is a notable person and i think it should not be deleted as , it has a good source. It has some more Sources which will get updated in a day or two. So i request to all of you to kindly don't mark it for deletion. Thanks a lot. Contributerdc Contributerdc (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So i suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace Contributerdc (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is about a notable person , who is a published Author, Trainer and Innovator. So i also suggest to KEEP Vaibhav Jha in mainspace.

Thankyou Arunzyz (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Arunzyz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This statement copied over from Crystallizedcarbon's talk page.

Hi I understand about the notability of the subject is less. But it is my personal request to you not to delete this subject and kindly remove the mark from deletion of the page. As this can help many young children and entrepreneurs. He is really a talented guy who is doing a great job in educating people free of cost. He belongs from a very humble and low-middle class family, despite of all the ill circumstances he made it possible. So i request you to kindly don't make it out of the main space.

Thankyou so much Contributerdc (talk) 4:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

• Delete per nom. I don't know what sources these users are talking about in the nomination page. Mark the train^Discuss 07:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability in the article, and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have cleaned up some of the most promotional text, but the notability concerns can't be fixed by editing the article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self published, non notable student fails
  WP:TOOSOON. Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Neither it is self published and nor i know any of these two users.Contributerdc (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person is most definitely a self-published author, whose book was published through the print-on-demand platform

Lulu. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't matter the author is self published or not.At the age of 18 , child is doing this much of work and the subject is enough notable personContributerdc (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)— Contributerdc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete We would require in depth coverage in multiple highly reliable independent sources to consider the 18 year old author of a self published book to be notable. In this case, none of the references meets that standard. They are blogs, social media posts and announcements by his school. We do not extend leniency to biography subjects who are young, "talented" and from lower middle class families. All article subjects must meet the threshold of notability, and this one doesn't at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Malynn Brashears, Ph.D.

Mindy Malynn Brashears, Ph.D. (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)

Probably notable, but

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GS
  WP:Prof as WP:Too soon. Nothing else for GNG. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. fails WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted above, it is clear that the subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines (
  WP:PROF). Deli nk (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was draftify. Article has been moved to Draft:Thiripuram. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram

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 by suspected spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed |username}}

Thiripuram (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 of yet non-notable film that fails

There are enough materials available in the media websites regarding this upcoming movie. Its clearly an upcoming Tamil Indian language movie. Not to be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrgrockz (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine and only needs improvement. Should not be treated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.134.240 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thiripuram upcoming Indian Tamil language movie content verified through media and news links. You can approve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.133.241 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to be fine and valid. Submit for approval. This article can be moved out of Articles for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. 210.18.141.246 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]