Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. If requested, I will restore the article to the author's private draft space so that they can try to improve it. MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OddKidOut[edit]

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

Originally had this as a BLP prod-but refs were added. Anyway, questionable notability that is also a autobio. Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, can you give a few tips on how to remove the autobio while still crediting Butch's accomplishments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 00:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to over-encumber you with messages, just would like to resolve this. To get rid of the autobiography format, I can delete the brands Butch has worked with and who he has collaborated with if that helps. Just want to know what the best move is and will gladly do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the autobio was since I thought you were the one who the page was about when I saw the name, sorry about that! Still this does have questionable notability. This is still a COI at least as well. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I can either back up any information provided here, or can delete anything that is still a conflict of interest. Very flexible on this end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wgolf and I both clicked "Review" and I also planned to nominate since none of this actually gives any context with how he's notable and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to supply information to prove his notability, however you guys are not giving me the chance to provide that information. Nothing stated on his page is false. And I am still willing to delete any part that is causing trouble. Can you please give a more detailed response other than "not notable", as I've worked hard on creating Butch's page and would like to edit it to fit your guidelines rather than have it completely terminated because you aren't aware of the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - My vote is more for re-listing in two weeks. If the above user can provide further proof of notability, I'd have no problems. But as it stands, most of the sources used are not reliable. That said, there are plenty of Philadelphia and Music sources that pass reliability. If this user improves reference formatting and provides additional sourcing, strike out my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have since updated the formatting of the References that are uploaded and provided additional ones as well. I have also contacted Butch and he has sent me tour flyers, pictures, etc to back up any claims made on his Wiki page that aren't in writing in some way, shape or form. I can send them to you or upload them on Wiki Commons. If this is not sufficient, again I cannot harp enough that I will remove the specific information that is not backed up in writing. I need more communication from the moderators so that I can make this page acceptable. There is certainly information provided here that is backed up in the references and deserves to stay up. Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 02:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to include that Butch's page should not be marked as an orphan page either. Please visit "JuTaun"'s page, Butch is listed as their drummer but is not linked as we just created his page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bserianni (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:41, 16 April 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 Hazel Scott. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Long Scott[edit]

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

Article about the mother about a much more well known pianist. Notability is not inherited. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nominator and there are not sources to ascertain. notability of the subject Bilbo Baggins (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant details to Hazel Scott. The subject only appears notable in the context of her daughter. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - interesting info but does not meet WP:GNG for standalone. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect You can't delete and merge. None of the merge !votes say what is too be merged. The relevant info is already there in anycase. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Torch (hoax)[edit]

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

Hoax mail that first appeared ten years ago. According to the article, no relevant developments occurred since then. I do not think this is notable anymore. Laber□^T 04:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence of it being notable now or ten years ago. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not temporary. Pokajanje|Talk 23:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna go with Weak Keep. I hate to sound like I'm pulling out a ball of WAX, but we do have other articles on virus hoaxes with less coverage than this. As far as valid arguments, I'm going keep because it does have coverage as far as notable sources, though I'm going weak keep because those appear to be primary sources. (Virus rundowns from AV software sites are something I'm not entirely sure on, admittedly.) News coverage may be a bit difficult to find, as virus hoaxes don't tend to hit the news for the fact that they are not so destructive as, say, the ILOVEYOU malware. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible to source this (see, for example, this article in ZDNet), but what would that accomplish? It would just be a warning not to spread the chain letter. I don't see anything specifically against this in WP:NOT, but it seems kind of like common sense. We don't really have any context for this virus hoax beyond, "Hey! Don't forward this message!" For something like ILOVEYOU, we've got plenty of coverage, real-world repercussions (a new law was passed in the Philippines), and a claim of significance (that is was the most damaging worm to date). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps at best as this would be questionable for any better improvements and this seems questionable enough where there may not be any better solid material to improve with. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While evaluating this to close it, I discovered this is the second AFD for this article. Because the first AFD should have been included, a relist is almost mandatory. Katie^talk 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Katie^talk 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my relist comment above, I'm including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Torch (virus hoax) here. Apparently the page was moved and the AFD2 template didn't recognize it. Katie^talk 23:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - would like to see the opinions of someone from a tech-related project comment. Was certainly notable in the past, but being outdated does not necessarily rule out notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, but, like I said above, I don't think this article was ever appropriate for inclusion. The coverage consists of routine hoax warnings. If you want advice on where to look, try CNET, ZDNet, TechRadar, PC World, and PC Magazine. Those are usually a good place to start, but there are obviously lots more. I usually supplement my searches with a few German magazines, such as C't and Chip, even though my German is atrocious, because they sometimes cover stuff that the English-language sources don't. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what to say? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hoax virus does not appear to have had any lasting coverage or notability. In fact, most of the references do not even mention the Olympic Torch virus hoax. They do talk about a similar and apparently better known hoax called Postcard, but that doesn't seem to have had lasting notability either. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 21 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Licefreee![edit]

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

The only source cited which is both reliable and not 404, is churnalism - obviously based on a press release. The article's tone is promotional, as you'd expect from a product that claims to be homeopathic but contains an active ingredient, albeit one of no known utility at this dilution in treating lice. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are finding nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if someone active on the article recovers some of the broken reliable sources, I'd reconsider. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:09, 14 April 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 'Withdrawn' thanks to User:Northamerica1000 for finding sources. Brustopher (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lerner Spectre[edit]

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

I can't find any sources establishing notability, just a lot of dodgy neo-Nazi and alt-right conspiracy sites claiming she's the smoking gun for their anti-semitic conspiracy theories. This page is a magnet for this sort of trash. Maybe there are some sources establishing notability in Swedish, but better safe than sorry. Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Lerner Spectre is not just some Swedish person. You have personally taken care that anything notable stays out of that article, wiping out references, and you have called a writer (Lars Holger Holm) as a fringe nutter, although there is no evidence that he is any kind of a nutter. All evidence so far has confirmed that the quote you have repeatedly deleted, is in fact just as it appeared in a TV interview. Your way of deleting and diminishing an article before calling for deletion of the whole article, is plain ugly and looks more like a way of vandalism than real constructive contribution. I oppose the deletion of that article. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

|For anyone wondering Lars Holger Holm's book is all about a Jewish conspiracy and the secret Jewish agenda and shit. Brustopher (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is still questionable and my searches are simply finding nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "That Barbara Spectre Video". American Thinker.
^ "Don’t Write Off European Jewry". The Jewish Week.
^ "Recognizing Antisemitism Is the First Step to Fighting It". Algemeiner Journal.
^ "Visions of Venice". The Jerusalem Report. Quote: "... Institute, a fascinating experiment in Jewish education created by Barbara Spectre, an American-Israeli, with funding from the Swedish government...the curriculum is pluralistic and eclectic goes without saying. Barbara Spectre - who ...". (subscription required)
^ "A Smorgasbord of Empowerment". The Jerusalem Report. Quote: "Cofounded by Dr. Barbara Spectre, a pleasant, relaxed, 67-year- old American-born Conservative Jew who is a professional educator, and several ...". (subscription required)
^ A Century of Commitment. p. 207. (subscription required)

Keep – I already said this (above), but just to make that more visible, I say again. North America brought us few sources. Quite obviously BLS is not just some random person who founded some random organization. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:45, 14 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Wood[edit]

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

Poorly written & referenced article by SPA/COI editor.

Issues with notability:

first 2 references refer to arcane work as a post-grad/doctoral student. Quite common for a student at this level to have papers published, does not confer notability in isolation.

3rd reference won't load for me, likely a deadlink

4th reference is a general one about their team, does not refer to the individual

there does not seem to be anything of note on a google search. no independent articles or mentions in top publications. a couple of keynote videos. to me, seems to fall short of WP:GNG and seems to just be a vanity page that has :slipped under the radar for its 4 years of existence Rayman60 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to think there is any notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly none of this actually suggests any solid independent notability, nothing convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently no reliable sources, and low article quality. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the above seem to be spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Sources are either by him or don't mention him, and the major claims of the article have no reliable sourcing. I didn't see any highly cited publications in Google scholar. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CV and Puffery. May be notable in the future but not yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the obvious reasons, CV, Puffery etc. –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume. This reads like one with nothing to establish notability. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that, based on available sources, this is not an independently notable topic, and suffers from original research issues. Several "keep" opinions must be discounted because they only assert that the article is "valuable", or similar, without addressing the relevant criteria of our inclusion guidelines, such as the availability and quality of sources. There is some interest into merging some content into David Pearce, and if there's subsequent consensus for that, the article can be restored for that purpose. Sandstein 07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionism (bioethics)[edit]

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

Almost entirely synthesis. WP:FRINGE/PS applies. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete original research; the only scholarship directly related to abolitionism is attributed to one person, David Pearce, who is fairly non-notable Pawg14 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, searches come up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - the sources are mostly about the general concept of suffering and not about this particular use of the term "abolitionism"; the neologism is not adequately supported by the sources. (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- From a casual google it appears to be a term in transhumanist bioethics, (though RSes are thin on the ground), but not more widely in philosophy. Google Scholar on "abolitionism" "bioethics" shows a few minor academic papers on the topic, though I don't really know if they're suitable for notability of a philosophical term - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - agree with David Gerard above. But if sources are improved, strike out my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Disclaimer: my work is cited - otherwise I'd do some editing to strengthen the entry.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added more focus on David Pearce as he is a key advocate of the philosophy, but obviously he can't play that up due to COI :) Deku-shrub (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - this is valuable information and shouldn't be lost to people who just "haven't heard of this before" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable information" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valuable, credible philosophical position and deserves to remain on wikipedia Fredrik Bränström (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you bring sources that show it is, as you claim, valuable and credible in the study of philosophy? That's what the article is lacking - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Fredrik and others, and think it would be a loss if this valuable article got deleted. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel this is being treated with an unfairly high standard of WP:NOTABILITY. Doesn't seem WP:FRINGE/PS because (a) it's treated seriously by philosophical authorities, (b) it doesn't seem to oppose any sort of scientific consensus. Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So bring the cites. I literally ask above to be convinced, but it'll take actual verifiable third-party coverage in reliable sources (even specialist ones) - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article has citations from WP:RS, e.g. the piece on BBC Radio. What do you contest about that one? Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The BBC is not generally considered a reliable source for judging the notability of philosophy jargon terms - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article identifies abolitionism as a "bioethical school and socio-political movement," not as a philosophical term. But in either case, I think BBC would be considered a reliable source. I guess that's where our disagreement lies. Empamazing (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can use some work, especially the history section which serves only to place abolitionism into a long-term religious historical context. The term may be relatively new but is definitely notable. It is a social movement based on negative utilitarianism. Also check Google books for references to abolitionist bioethics and Pearce. Keystroke (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a sudden influx of comments from accounts with a very sparse Wikipedia editing history, and without having brought the actual cites. Did someone inadvertently issue something that has functioned as a call for votes? - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This got brought up on Facebook in a two-way comment conversation. I saw it there and felt I should contribute. I suspect others did as well. I don't think it qualifies as WP:CAN because there was no mention in the conversation that anyone should vote, much less vote in a particular way. I'm happy to be corrected on that. Empamazing (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This thread seems to be promoting canvassing: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ Pawg14 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a quick search on Facebook after reading this, and also found this other thread. Sigh: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ NeatGrey (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thread that brought me was different than either of those, just FYI. Empamazing (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was a third one? Someone's been working hard at the canvassing - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I already said that one wasn't canvassing. It was on someone's wall. I hope you're being mindful of any preexisting biases you have in this discussion. Empamazing (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        My preexisting bias is that obscure neologisms that even advocates say are mostly substantiated in message forum posts don't warrant Wikipedia articles - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean that you seem to be trying to decrease the quantity of transhumanism/rationalist-related content on Wikipedia, or at least make it more negative in tone. Even your comment just now is concerning. I gave the example of a BBC citation as evidence for notability, but you instead say people are using "message forum posts," which seems to clearly be highlighting the weakest argument against your position instead of engaging with the best ones. (I also think this thread is unproductive, and we should focus on the content of the AfD now.) Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I'm not. Although there was a lot that was a badly self-referential Walled garden of ill-sourced content, but most of that got cleared. However, the general problem of subject areas with terrible sourcing that doesn't pass Wikipedia muster is not somehow a problem of me just being mean, as you make it out to be. Rather than trying to edge up to personal attacks as you are now doing, perhaps finding solid and convincing sources for the article would be more productive - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually surprised David Pearce's work 'The Hedonistic Imperative' doesn't have an entry of it's own - not to mention the fact that this entry is up for deletion. I think the reason this particular entry may seem a bit light is because many transhumanists with very similar ideas are spread out and don't realize there is a single philosophical school of thought that encompasses a fundamental aspect of what they believe. It's extremely premature to consider deleting this entry, especially given the explosive growth of the transhumanist movement at the moment. HedWeb one of the most talked about works among the ethical transhumanist community and, increasingly, members of the rationalist community interested in transhumanism. There is simply no reason to delete this entry right now. Bzzzing (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Also, David Gerard - I read what you wrote, and I think it's difficult to give citations when those citations are often threads in various forums or comment threads. The fact that "Abolitionism" and "bioethics" don't show many published papers on Google Scholar is strangely strict metric to use as notability, is it not? Bzzzing (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, not really. Neologisms of primarily forum or Facebook usage don't generally make Wikipedia. Are you seriously positing forum and Facebook posts as substantiation for a philosophical jargon term? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the David Pearce article. Essentially all of the sources explicitly discussing this article's topic are about Pearce or by Pearce, so it's cleaner to put this content there, minus some irrelevant bits. "Abolitionism" is very hard to Google, because of all the sources talking about slavery, but I don't think we're going to find anything supporting this as a notable term independent of Pearce. (I see there's a canvassing warning at the top; I have no connection to any canvassing.) NeatGrey (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Pearce re notability. TimothyJosephWood 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: canvassing noted and more eyes invited at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Abolitionism_.28bioethics.29 - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Pearce. Despite this nom, no evidence yet produced that it is a "bioethical school and socio-political movement". Refs are all for quotes from various long-dead figures. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if there were substantial public or academic discourse about this subject, the description given by the article is so vague as to be worthless. "Abolitionism is a bioethical school and socio-political movement that promotes the use of biotechnology to eliminate suffering." Well, what human endeavor is there which doesn't have the elimination of suffering as it's ultimate goal? Furthermore, what human endeavor actually stands a chance of doing so? This isn't a notable "bioethical school and socio-political movement," it's naval gazing by academics and transhumanists. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does not deserve an article here. If not delete, then merge the content into a more suitable article, such as Suffering. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is pretty clearly false, that all (or even a large majority) human endeavors or bioethical theories seek to eliminate suffering. You should listen to this BBC radio show or read this response to the proposition of reducing the suffering of wild animals, to see how some people respond to the idea. Christianity, for example, has a ton of rhetoric about how suffering is good and necessary (can cite if necessary). It's pretty contentious, even if it does seem like common sense in a way. Empamazing (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity rationalizes suffering, but then holds up the promise of heaven, in which there is no suffering. All art is done to increase pleasure, which necessarily (and by definition) decreases suffering. Medicine is done for the express purpose of reducing suffering. Technology, when not expressly done to reduce suffering, is done to promote convenience, which is a minor reduction of suffering. Love is about pleasure and war is about gains which will reduce the suffering of one particular group (even sectarian wars are often done to appease deities, with the ultimate goal of those deities reducing the suffering of the warring groups) while peace is defined as a lack of suffering... The list goes on and on. I mean, the very concept of 'motivation', which underpins every endeavor ever taken is fundamentally bound up with the reduction or elimination of suffering. Seriously, name anything you've ever done and why, and I can -without distorting the truth in any way- put that in terms of the elimination or reduction of suffering. Most of the time, you wouldn't even need to include the 'why,' because discerning the way the action in question reduced suffering would be trivial. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a huge gap between reducing suffering and abolishing it. You seem to think they're more similar to each other, but I think they're hugely different in many situations, like wireheading, intervening in nature, or thinking earthly suffering is good because it leads to pleasure in heaven. I think you can give a justification for most human behavior as a way to reduce suffering, but you can do that for plenty of other things, like abiding by social norms or increasing autonomy or increasing survival rates. But I think the key evidence for the purposes of whether Abolitionism is a distinct topic on Wikipedia is just the fact that is has provoked such controversy and that its "followers" have come to such counterintuitive conclusions (not to mention that it's been discussed as a distinct movement/ideology in numerous WP:RS). Empamazing (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, there's no fundamental difference between reducing suffering (or anything else) and eliminating it. It is literally a matter of degrees. That's so basic a concept that I'm truly shocked anyone would suggest otherwise without having their tongue firmly planted in their cheek. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people want to reduce the size of government, but few want to remove it entirely. Anarchism is a completely reasonable Wikipedia topic. Counterargument? Empamazing (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I point out the incredible fallacy of equating humanity's most common concerted effort to cooperatively ameliorate suffering with suffering itself? If that doesn't sink in, then allow me to spell it out: suffering is bad, by definition. It's always undesirable. (Don't try to claim short-term suffering for long-term gains as an exception, because the whole principle of that idea is a net reduction in suffering.) Meanwhile, government (as a concept, not specific governments) is always desirable. This isn't apples and oranges, this is apples and late 60's American built muscle cars.

That being said, yes, anarchism is not fundamentally different from the desire for small government, it's just a matter of degrees. The fact that not everyone wants to push that idea of shrinking government to its logical conclusion just shows that most people grasp the fact that a certain amount of government is always desirable. So at least the comparison is object to object, instead of, say, apples and the existential implications of solipsism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't feel either of us have more evidence or arguments to bring to the table at this point. Thanks for discussing, and maybe we can resolve this disagreement another time. For what it's worth, I hope you're right! Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd love to think you're right. But aren't there many secular and religious ideologies that seek to rationalise suffering rather than aim at its long-term abolition? By all means add a Criticisms section - just "naval gazing by academics and transhumanists" as you put it. The whole entry could do with strengthening (IMO). But this is different from arguing for its deletion. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are lots of ideologies that rationalize suffering. But they all also claim to offer an end to it in some way. I'm not denigrating the idea, mind. Finding a way to end suffering would, by definition, be the single greatest thing ever accomplished (so long as that's the only thing brought to an end), but it's just such an incredibly broad notion that it's not feasible to have an article about it. I mean, literally every single school of thought in bioethics is about reducing or eliminating suffering. It's a fine subject for a book, or a paper. It's just not a good subject for an encyclopedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after adding the most important information to the Pearce biography. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response David Gerard's request for reliable sources, here's a listing of some examples of when "Abolitionism" has been mentioned in print (limited to books I either own or have heard of; though I'm fairly certain there are more I haven't seen)

-"Ethics Matters" by Charlotte and Peter Vardy An excerpt: "Abolitionists tend to have a really optimistic view of the future and believe that technology can and should be used to eliminate the causes of human suffering, thus making the world progressively happier. Many Abolitionists are doctors, scientists, and IT innovators."

-Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement edited by Calvin Mercer and Tracy J. Trothen

-Cyborg Selves: A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman by Jeanine Thweatt-Bates

-Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity by R.U. Sirius and ‎Jay Cornell

-Transcend the Flesh: Transhumanism Debate by Tobiasz Mazan

-Michael Avon Oeming's "The Victories: Transhuman" graphic novel describes Aabolitionism as one of the "intellectual currents that circulate[s] through the wide river of Transhumanist thought."

These are just a few of the books I'm aware of that mention "Abolitionism". If you need excerpts, or links, I'll try to provide them. I'm genuinely curious, David Gerard, what else constitutes notability? I joined Wikipedia as an editor several months ago, and I'm really struggling to understand why you think this page in particular should be deleted. Bzzzing (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE to my above comment:

After reading through some of the past comments, I felt I should add some information on the sources I listed. The first book I mentioned, 'Ethics Matters' was written by Dr. Peter Vardy and his wife Charlotte. One would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source than Dr. Vardy when it comes to the specific subject of religion and transhumanism. The second, 'Religion and Transhumanism', was written by Calvin Mercer and Tracy Trothen, both of whom are PhDs and university professors. Jeanine Thweatt-Bates book 'Cyborg Selves' is one of the more popular and commonly cited books about Transhumanism and religion. The 4th book I listed, 'Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity' was written by an icon of the counterculture/hacker/transhumanist/libertarian communities... I don't even know how to describe R.U. Sirius (aka Ken Goffman) without feeling as if I'm underestimating his impact on culture. Nevertheless, I believe he is a fairly reliable source. I'll stop now and possibly update later, since it looks like we're getting close to wikipedia's "scheduled maintenance". Bzzzing (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant canvassing by Davidcpearce, with personal attack: [1] (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What does this have to do with me? I listed some reliable sources. Are you now moving the goalposts? Seems to me like a police officer who stopped a driver with no cause, and then ends up trying to arrest him for resisting arrest. Can we debate the actual merits of the page here? Bzzzing (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing, which is why it wasn't under your comment - it's a separate issue concerning this extremely problematic AFD. @Davidcpearce: has been caught blatantly canvassing, after denials of such - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - David, please assume good faith. In many years of Wikipedia editing, I've never urged anything but KEEP - including entries for groups, individuals and philosophies that I profoundly disagree with. I'm not sure what you mean by canvassing. If, say, the Flat Earth Society entry were at risk of being deleted, then I'd publicly let them know. But this is very different from soliciting votes - or for that matter an expression of intellectual sympathy with Flat Earthers. Or in your judgement, is it best if potentially interested parties in any deletion debate _don't_ know it’s under discussion? --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing explains what is meant by the term. In short, a call to action among editors otherwise uninvolved in a situation which calls for a consensus in order to influence that consensus is considered canvassing, and canvassing is considered disruptive. In this case, the links seem to show that some members were calling on any editor interested in this subject to come vote to keep this article, which is a clear-cut case of canvassing. While it's true that we should always assume good faith, when there is clear evidence of misbehavior (as is the case here), it would be ridiculous to expect editors not to mention it, or not to draw attention to it, or even not to 'out' the editor responsible. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your canvassing included a direct personal attack on me, you have already demonstrated a lack of good faith in this matter - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, you are an outspoken critic of transhumanism in all its guises and favour deleting many transhumanist-related Wikipedia entries. If this misdescribes your position, then I apologise (seriously). MjolnirPants, lamenting the latest round of deletionism is not misbehaviour unless one believes that Wikipedia deletion debates are best conducted without the widest possible discussion.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, MjolnirPants... this is per the first sentence of Wikipedia's page on Canvassing:

"...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Some here seem to be trying to use the rules in a way counter to their true spirit. Some people who disagree with you have appeared in the debate, so it is suddenly "canvassing". Tell me, how does one discover there's even a debate happening? Is the only true and noble way to accidentally stumble upon it?

But as I said... none of this really matters. No one has addressed my point, which makes all of this moot. I listed several reliable sources showing that Abolitionism is a well known and used term. Are there any responses to that? Specifically David Gerard, does that have any effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page, and if not, why not? Bzzzing (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop reading at the first sentence, then. Seriously. I've seen this exact argument a hundred times, and it's just as fallacious now as it has ever been . The links clearly show a call to action directed at a large group of editors who were very likely to vote a certain way. Unless you can produce some evidence that the call to action was made to multiple groups of people, you have no ground to stand on. David, the same thing goes for you. If you have no evidence that this call to action was made to a wide variety of people, then you have no right to claim that it was an attempt to broaden the discussion. The links have been posted and seen. This is clearly canvassing. At this point, it would be best to admit to it and either try to correct it (by making further calls to action to groups not likely to vote your way, such as skeptics and those who have expressed criticism of transhumanism in the past) or try to mitigate the damage done in some other way. As things stand, I really have no idea how many of the one sentence votes above to keep are based on actual consideration, instead of ideological loyalty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pointless procedural rule arguing, engaged in with the express purpose of trying to avoid talking about the actual merits of the page. The fact is, there is no reason there should have been a call for deletion in the first place, and I have shown evidence of that. Ignoring that evidence and focusing on some obtuse interpretation of the rules seems disingenuous and, honestly, like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? What do you want? If you truly think that some malicious canvassing was done, then ignore the votes that have no actual substance or point to them. Does any of that have an effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page? Bottom line is that the facts are the facts no matter where they come from, and this focus on canvassing is a sort of backwards, twisted, turned-around version of the argument from authority. Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. I've shown that, no one has disputed it. So why are we still here? This debate is being needlessly stretched out. Bzzzing (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pointless procedural rule arguing, engaged in with the express purpose of trying to avoid talking about the actual merits of the page. So in effect, you're claiming that disruptive editing is acceptable when you're right. Um. No. Also, it takes two to argue, and you're number 2.

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? Oh, I dunno. Maybe exactly what I already suggested he do? Seriously, you're clearly arguing to argue. If you don't have any actual point, it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse.

Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. So you claim, yet finding RSs for a definition of the term is still a problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing worth keeping in the article. See WP:SYNTH and WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge what info is possible to the biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Very selective merge Not seeing a lot to be saved. Perhaps the second sentence of the Philosophy section could be moved into the BLTC Research section atDavid Pearce (philosopher). If so that section should be the target of the redirect. Everything else is covered in enough detail and most of the rest of this article would be undue or is poorly cited. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and Computing Engineering[edit]

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

This topic doesn't seem notable to me. The sources are all universities that offer courses with this name (or similar names) except for the page on Careers360.com, which appears to be either a copy of the article, or vice-versa. If the article is a copy of that page, there are obviously WP:COPYVIO issues too. Yaris678 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that it appears to be blatant WP:COPYVIO, and rather bad at that. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding anything to actually suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is no article. It could be rewritten from scratch as sub-sub-section on Delhi Technological University. –Be..anyone 💩 08:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copyvio, notability, and RS problems. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be about a specific programme offered by a particular university, and not about the "discipline" in general. There are already well written articles about Computer Science and Mathematics. The programme the article refers to is not notable enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. At best, a single line mention in the article of the university may suffice. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a linguistic conflation rather than an encyclopedic concept, which is why the proffered references are university course pages, rather than proper WP:RS, with analysis and review of topic, and why the article itself says the topic has been labeled differently by other universities. Also probable WP:COPYVIO as noted. Nothing here to salvage, and even if references could be found, WP:TNT applies, and there are extant articles e.g. Theoretical computer science. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:38, 19 April 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. If requested, I will restore the article to someone's private draft space so that they can work on improving it. MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book market of Bukhara[edit]

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

An interesting text, but unfortunately it is original research published in wikipedia by a newcomer who does not understand our rules Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Again, no notability, no sources, no WP:GNG met, userfy and resubmit via the wizard if they can adapt. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm not sure if this will ever meet WP:GNG, but we can try. The editor who created this has many of his articles flagged for speedy or proposed deletion, mostly due to original research. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable article which looks like an essay. --Ochilov (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy as I would encourage this user to save us some time, familiarize himself with Wikipedia and take his time, instead of submitting these articles which still need improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy unless seriously rescued: Indications are that the subject might be notable from a glance at GBooks, and it seems likely that there would be additional Arabic and maybe other foreign language sources (Farsi, Russian, Turkish, ...). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - if Userfy works or another user improves, could become an article that passes all standards. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence the subject is notable. This subject should be developed within the Emirate of Bukhara article and the spun off. Sadly, it looks like the author doesn't converse in English and likely won't make the needed changes. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userify -- This is a bad article on a notable subject. I am not convinced that this is so bad that it needs TNT. We are encouraged DONTBITE to new users. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 17 April 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. If requested, I will restore the article to someone's private draft space so that they can work on improving it. MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embroidery centers in Surkhandarya[edit]

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

An interesting text, but unfortunately it is original research published in wikipedia by a newcomer who does not understand our rules Staszek Lem (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - No sources, no notability, doesn't seem to meet any WP:GNG guidelines. I'd userfy it to the author's Sandbox and have them submit it via the WP:WIZ if they're able to adapt it. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy if needed as simply none of this actually suggests an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability and sourcing problems. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy. The sources are there, they just aren't inline, and the notes in the notes section should be integrated into the text. It's going to take some editing. The embroidery tradition is covered in sources here, here, and I suspect that it will be necessary to search on variations of the place name since the original is not in latin alphabet. If you send the user to AfC I will help out. I haven't got the time right now, but will make changes over the next few days if I can. LaMona (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as a G3 obvious hoax. If this chap was indeed the first man to walk on the moon, I trust that another admin will correct my error. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan McCreath[edit]

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

This is a clear hoax and easily qualifies for WP:G3. However, a second user has removed the CSD tag, albeit without a reason. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at once. Big joke. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. The 321 kiddo (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but provide sources, otherwise delete. Spiderman's Companion (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reba Monica John[edit]

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

My searches are finding nothing better than expected links at News and WP:INDAFD and this still seems questionable for the applicable notability with it simply seeming that it's too soon for a solid article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has got significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Passes WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it's a stub article doesn't make it delete-worthy. There's enough external sources to support WP:GNG. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR, also Reba Monica John played a role of having 3-5 min.s within her debut movie. As on the reviews of her debut movie, their is not even any mentions about her name. [8], [9], [10] also the Manorama Online clearly mentions on their review that "Reba Monica John as Chippy has very little to contribute to the whole" See: [11] JackTracker (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gained WP:GNG by the references and got notability as appeared in news feed in popular News Articles.--Helper V1 (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to a young actress starting out, and has appeared in a notable film and with (some) coverage. Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, sourced, and verified links. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:NACTOR. Uncletomwood (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft: Per WP:UPANDCOMING. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:NACTOR 122.174.242.34 (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No solid source. According to WP:BLP and WP:NMODEL, this person is not notable. All primary sources talk about her role in a film, where she is not a lead. Nairspecht Converse 10:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, Reliable references and meets WP:GNG.--188.49.165.140 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without objections. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurs' Organization[edit]

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

~~An advert for a nonnotable organization. No independent sources despite being tagged since 2014. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that this source in the article at the time of the nomination (diff) from the New Straits Times is independent of the topic, as is this source from Inc. in the External links section. Also, how does the article read as an advertisement? It does not contain promotional language or weasel words/phrases extolling the greatness or virtues of the organization. It is actually worded quite neutrally, and provides an objective overview about the organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ New Straits Times
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer
^ "Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (YEO)". Inc..
^ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
^ Oh, to Be So Young, Ambitious and Really Really Rich. Los Angeles Times.
^ Philippine Daily Inquirer
^ Toledo Blade
^ Startup Communities. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt87–90.
^ The Sleeping Giant. pp. pt180–. (subscription required).
^ From Here to the Streets: 2012 Revised Edition. p. 205.
^ "Entrepreneurs' Organization Celebrates 25th Year Anniversary". Anadolu Agency. (subscription required)
^ "Strength in numbers". Inside Business. (subscription required)
^ "Executive Founds Young Entrepreneurs Organization in South Florida". Miami Herald. (subscription required)

Keep - while the article needs improving, its notable enough and has reliable sources. I would tag it for improvement instead. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:36, 14 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional female costume in Surkhandarya[edit]

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

This article appears to be entirely original research, with no sources available upon which to build a valid article. Since Surkhandrya is a relatively small region of Uzbekistan, it is not clear that an article covering the traditional female dress of the women in this region is of sufficient global interest to be encyclopedic. An article on clothing in Uzbekistan, or even a section on this topic in Culture of Uzbekistan would be a better, more general starting point. The fact that this article is written in a largely unintelligible English (I suspect a WP:MACHINETRANSLATION) does not help its cause: even if we chose to keep an article on this limited topic, we could not salvage the present text but would need to start over from scratch (i.e. WP:TNT applies). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little value in its current state--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hate to say "delete" as this is an encyclopaedic topic, even if it is best covered in a general Uzbek national costume article, but I agree that it looks like a machine translation or original research, and WP:DYNAMITE seems the only way to handle. Mabalu (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - while the article may indeed be topic-worthy, there's not enough sources or details to support WP:GNG. I'd hate to blow it up unless absolutely necessary, my 2cents. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy as none of this actually suggests a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge - I can't see how this is notable enough for its own article, but may do well if the key components were placed on an article related to Uzbek culture. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD is malformed, please follow the instructions to set it up correctly. Sandstein 07:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD is malformed, please follow the instructions to set it up correctly. Sandstein 07:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequenceRathfelder (talk) 19:26, 13 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Riordin[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO - reliable third party coverage is scant save for brief articles noting her original appointment and her subsequent dismissal from her post as commissioner. (NB - the article misspells her her name and editors searching for sources should search on "Riordan", with an 'a'.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I got much of the same information searching. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sources to argue notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; regardless of only two sources, neither assert notability of any kind. I do not know if two sources make a subject notable, one concerns her resignation. Donnie Park (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local animal control board is not an office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, and none of the sourcing here suggests any reason why she could possibly be considered more notable than the norm for the purposes of WP:GNG — and no, the fact that she's the daughter of a former mayor of the city doesn't give her an inherited notability freebie, either. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SalesLoft[edit]

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

Article fails notability, and notability (organizations and companies) guidelines, and the primary contributor has a conflict of interest. Company is not a significant company, but an Atlanta-based Startup and the page is written as a corporate resume. A reference list is included, but individual article components are unreferenced, making independent verification of article tedious. Article's most active editor was User:SalesLoft, but that editor is an unregistered user and was likely a paid editor or employee. Article was nominated for speedy deletion in 2012 for failing WP:CORP and WP:GNG, but banner was removed by an unregistered user/IP address. Absent significant editing to make the article objective and properly referenced, I propose deletion. Stiche1775 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Stiche1775 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and get an admin to topic ban User:SalesLoft. This needs a major rewrite, which I will start, but it is actually notable, searches came up with good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I found some decent sources for this article. Business Insider and entrepreneur.com both have articles for this company. Sheepythemouse (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are finding nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep but add tags - there are plenty of sources and it is notable. But the article itself needs to be severely improved. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:41, 14 April 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 - blatant hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius of Dendrinata[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to AfD because I think it bears the hallmarks of a hoax, but isn't blatant enough for CSD. I declined a speedy for this reason, after Googling unsuccessfully. I reckon it's a university student hoax, and quite well put together. Whatever, it's been unsourced since 2009 anyway and doesn't show any particular notability for the subject. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for spotting this goes to SwisterTwister, by the way. Peridon (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically as searches easily found nothing and this has never been improved likely because it's non-existent. Certainly another example of no one caring for noticing this was actually fabricated. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found the same results as above. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. No references whatsoever found for this subject apart from Wikipedia and mirrors. Any authentic ancient Greek philosopher of any notability would have some references in some reliable source - otherwise, how would anyone know of his existence? Calamondin12 (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much the same as above. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see why you were conflicted about a CSD on this one.. It almost looks plausible, but it's still a hoax. Honestly looks like a snow close here is indicated. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's the hurry? Article has been here since 2009 ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 15 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Brooks Auto Center[edit]

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

Non-notable local company. SSTflyer 05:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Despite existing since 1939 gets hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ellis Brooks Chevrolet was a very high-profile dealership. A detailed Automotive News story from 2012 notes that it was "a downtown landmark for decades, with the dealer's name on the roof in neon and visible for miles", and goes into detail about the company's history, including Marie Brooks becoming one of the first female GM franchisees in the country after her husband died in 1963, as well as Penske's recent repurposing of the original building. "How Roger Penske wooed and won Frisco's grande dame of auto retailing and revived a 7-story downtown jewel". When Brooks gave up its Chevy franchise in 2008, it was notable enough to earn a feature story on NPR's Weekend Edition. "Auto Dealing Family Feels The Pinch". Coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle includes "Those Merry Oldsmobile Days Waning / Demise of Auto Row has been tip-off" ("A whole generation of children from San Francisco can recite the Ellis Brooks jingle"); "It's painful to watch passing parade of change"; and a bunch of others that can be found readily by following the Ellis Brooks Chevrolet find sources links above. Given the national coverage plus the extensive local coverage, I think this passes GNG as a San Francisco landmark. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's simply a local car place and it's still questionable for solid notability here at Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do know a bit about this one and there is actually a historical aspect to this dealership. This one needs a lot more work to make it acceptable. 11:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment, I'm coming across more and more about this dealership. I have no doubt in my mind that it is not only historical but notable as well. I'm almost thinking that Marie Brooks may be notable herself. It think that I'll just create a section in the article for her. I'm going to put in some work on this article over the next few days to improve it. It needs much work. Be nice to have some help though. :‑) Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give Karl Twist time to work on the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is notable in its own right as a high profile dealership. It has coverage in several reliable sources. That said, I would trim the article significantly. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be of historical significance, and there are enough decent sources. Edwardx (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have done a bit pre 13 April 2016 and will do more over the next few days. There is a lot of info about this dealership. You just need to know where to look for the refs and info. Karl Twist (talk) 11:31, 18 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIMON Short Film[edit]

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

Very premature. There is currently no no coverage of this project in reliable third-party sources. This is to be expected: the film is still in pre-production, it's a short film (so less likely to be the subject of in-depth coverage in any case) and it's written and directed by a pair of filmmakers that do not appear to be notable themselves. (Note that an earlier PROD tag was removed) Pichpich (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Also obvious COI, see User:Polexican and User:LeslieHarro , both which have not made userpages but wrote this article and are mentioned in it. Also, this short film doesn't have a title yet... ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

Delete for being (at kindest) TOO SOON. The two individuals Adam Kowalik and Leslie Harro appear to be names otherwise related to films but I can find nothing connecting them to a SIMON short film. There is a film by this name but with different cast & crew that made the rounds in 2015, but nothing by Kowalik and Harro as a predictive for 2016. Short films always have a tough time, but completely lacking any type of sourcability, smells a bit HOAXEY. If it ever becomes notable the topic can always be revisited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they can try again when they have sources and notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NOT anyone with a conflict of interest. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Mhhossein (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, no indication of significance, and G11, entirely promotional. I'm reprotecting. that an article has been accepted at AfC is not sufficient reason for protection to be removed without a discussion with the protecting admin. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZippCast[edit]

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

Seemingly NN web site, repeatedly created (and salted) as a marketing piece. Except for mentions on obscure websites like "Prepper Network," nothing to pass GNG.

The article includes references to sites that criticize youtube, but don't mention ZippCast and lots of facebook and forum references. Article heavily edited by COI WP:SPA editors, resulting in an article that seems like nothing more than advertising.

I recommend deleting as NN and salting again. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and if anyone cares to put an A7 on it I wouldn't argue, since any assertion of notability is tenuous at most. Video-sharing is a high profile, well-covered field, and this has no coverage I can see; (the only sources in the at-first-glance-impressive reference section that aren't self-references appear to be about unrelated sites and not to mention this one at all as far as I can see). ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I've removed some of the more questionable material, since Wikipedia article space is not the place for YouTube and a YouTube wannabe startup to fling legal threats at each other, and certainly not without sourcing considerably better than their own user forums. The image will need to go as well, since I can't imagine the SPA who uploaded it really intended to put their own corporate logo into the public domain; Commons:Deletion requests/File:ZippCast Homepage April 2 2016.png duly created. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further note that this is the thread where the SPAs are being recruited, so expect a few more newcomers to "stumble across" this article. ‑ Iridescent 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article could hold some value to readers. It does hold some pretty interesting information. It appears the statement made above "YouTube and a YouTube wannabe" by Iridescent is a bit biased. After roaming their forums the discussion started with a relatively new user discussed changing a draft page. Official staff of the website simply stopped by the thread and gave a simple "thank you". I didn't know that could be a reason to remove a topic here. Toddst1 claims that these accounts were created for a single purpose. In another words he's stating that users are not allowed to create an account to provide information unless they're planning to edit a thousand other topics. Makes one wonder how Wikipedia even started. GenManEdit 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — GenManEdit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Until I cleared out the worst of the cruft, this spamvertorial explicitly said that this site was modelled on YouTube. What part of "YouTube wannabe" are you disputing? ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 13 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elhachem[edit]

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

Possible COI and Manual of Style Issues TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While COI and badly written pieces can be fixed, this is not notable. I think it's just a common last name in Lebanon. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - as a history buff, I'm sympathetic. It could be a worthy article if it were sourced. But its not and is also poorly written. It is, in truth, the name of a family that once held regional power. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- This has the feel of a badly written family history tract. I would reconsider my position if the article was greatly improved, including references and links. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails WP:V, and it's quite difficult to source because searches only seem to turn up people with that name. GAB^Hello! 21:34, 17 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Tuttle[edit]

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

Fails the notability test for musicians - WP:MUSICBIO. No significant press coverage, recordings, or awards, etc. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-tuttle-emc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto2020 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage.Not notable. Bruriyah (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 7 recordings, significant coverage, significant awards. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/john-tuttle-emc/ Toronto2020 (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if independent sources were provided I'd change my mind very quickly. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately needs sourcing improvement, but the Canadian Encyclopedia link provided by Toronto2020 above singlehandedly slamdunks this by itself — it's a key principle of WP:GNG that one solid entry in an external encyclopedia (presuming, of course, that we aren't simply copyvioing it) counts for as much by itself as five or six news articles. And for added bonus, the "suggested reading" section at the end of the Canadian Encyclopedia entry lists four more potential sources right off the top — and while they won't all be usable sources, ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies coughs up 235 more hits. Keep and flag for reference improvement. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia which establishes WP:GNG and provides further references. freshacconci talk to me 14:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. I'm unable to access two of the sources below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Canadian Encyclopedia
The Whole Note (Publication with 30,000 printed copies circulation, with "over 800 distribution points throughout Southern Ontario"; see here)
Gettysburg Times
"Tuttle heads choral programs," Music Magazine, vol 12, no 5, Nov/Dec 1989
"Sixteenth notes: John Tuttle receives honorary doctorate from University of Toronto," Organ Canada, vol 18, no 4, Dec 2005
U of T Magazine
St. Thomas's Anglican Church

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Product requirements document[edit]

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

Unreferenced. It's probably an important topic, and googling finds some possible references, but they look like coming from various commercial sites that offer training or services, and it would be much better to have actually reliable sources added by somebody who knows the topic professionally. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is indeed an important topic, and it could be sourced from twenty textbooks at least. (Google search "Product requirements document", click on "books".) The document is the basic expression of what a product is supposed to do, which everyone can easily see must influence every other software engineering/systems engineering document down the line. You are also right that the article ought to be sourced, but that isn't a concern here: our concern is that reliable sources exist, and they do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep - sources need to be added in, but other than that it is notable and important. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the titles of the references presented by Northamerica1000 seem suspect, upon closer investigation they seem to be RS, so there is quite some coverage. Past the WP:DICDEF line. Esquivalience ^t 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohini_Raaj_Puniya[edit]

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

Poor references Desertedtense (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails relevant guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no good sources whatsoever. Desertedtense, do not use "Poor References" as your reason. Although you nominated a article that should be deleted, that is not a valid reason and no one will vote for it. Please make your reason lengthier, and see WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - currently no reliable sources, but considering her prominence in Indian, and now international culture, there likely will be some soon. DaltonCastle (talk)
Userfy in creator's userspace or move to draft per DaltonCastle. Likely to meet GNG so no sense trashing all this person's work. Just park it outside article namespace. Also, is Glamanand Supermodel India at all notable in any way? Possible merge? Montanabw ^(talk) 22:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement between multiple editors on whether WP:BLP1E applies to this article, in particular, whether this is a biography. Let us try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Lyne[edit]

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

Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as well. Further noting that since the article was nominated for deletion, the article creator has changed the name of the article, possibly in an attempt to circumvent 1E (see his comments on 1E below). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF, not circumvent but article improvement. According to that logic, the Boston, Massachusetts article should be deleted because the article was changed to Boston. The editor, WV, has previously been reported to ANI as a drama seeker and problematic editor and has been blocked before. I am sorry there is still daily misbehavior by WV. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of today, ten days after the murder, the news cycle on the murder has died to a slow crawl. Both Yahoo and Google searches find only a small smattering of updated news stories online (mostly local from the Seattle area), the rest are days old, in most cases, 4 days old and older. This shows how the incident is little more than a news story, certainly not an ongoing one, and that fact further bolsters the argument that the article is not encyclopedic, rather, a news item. This again brings up how Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As such, the article has no enduring, encyclopedic value and should be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is reason to delete the President Rutherford Hayes article because no news stories on him for decades. No! Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge, or userfy - It is too soon to tell whether or not this case will make headline news. However, by userfying the article, it can be easily resurrected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Lyne worked at Swedish Medical Center, this article can redirect to it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a horrible crime, however it's something that isn't necessarily notable. The crime is horrid, but not every crime, or every victim, is notable enough for an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree that we should mention her as a notable person or employee at Swedish Hospital in its article and give the explanation there. That, and/or mention the crime in Wikipedia's current events (daily news section) for the day it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because it meets the requirements even though this person is not famous - There are currently 20 citations in the article that come from 7 countries. A Google search show 134 citations from at least 10 countries. The nominator says it fails WP:GNG. Actually, it meets it by a wide margin. Specifically

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

The usual Wikipedia custom is to rename the article "Murder of Ingrid Lyne". But that is not a deletion, merely a rename. If Ingrid Lyne were a TV episode, then Wikipedia custom is no question keep.

Wikipedia is not a vote so this careful analysis shows it should be a keep, even a speedy keep. If we don't want Wikipedia to be the porn star, video game, TV episode, high school, big murder website, then there needs to be a systemwide discussion. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see articles, some noting unique information, without doing an exhaustive search from

Belgium
United States
Brazil
Australia
India
Romania
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Sorry for the flags but that is a Wikipedia tradition. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. All three show how this article is rightly being considered for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. WP:1E is for a person. This is an event, Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Not news does not prohibit news. Otherwise the 2016 Brussels Airport bombing would be deleted because it is news. Too soon is not applicable because it meets GNG. Sorry, I do not make the rules. But we must follow them. Need to change the rules if you want your way. I will help you if you have a reasonable method to change Wikipedia.. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable. The article is a biography. Sorry, I don't make the rules, either, and policy is not only clear on this, but the article is very likely to be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whiskeymouth. Caden ^cool 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whiskey's analysis is spot on. Over time, the article will get longer but for now the name change resolves the BLP1E issue and the numerous references and external links make it crystal clear that this topic has already garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Whiskey has added a good deal of sourcing to the article (both local and international). Also added has been coverage from near and far of (a) this case as an archetype for the dangers of online dating and (b) coverage of public officials' reactions to the outpouring of "recycling" jokes. It's all getting significant coverage in reliable sources David in DC (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:David in DC, do consider moving this comment to the bottom of the page, or repeating it there (since someone has already responded to it here). This keeps the debate roughly chronological, very useful to subsequent and closing editors, who need to see how opinion in an AFD shifts as evidence is added, sources added, and article expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage does not an encyclopedia article make. Wikipedia is not a news source nor is it a website that regurgitates and compiles what news sources report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, that is a truly bizarre argument. OF COURSE Wikipedia articles can be created based on "what news sources report".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply, as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on news" and WP:NOTNEWS is completely different. An article only stays on Wikipedia based on its enduring notability. It is too soon to determine how notable this murder is, considering how recent this is and there have been other run-of-the-mill murder-and-dismemberment cases in the recent past (like the San Diego case that I mention below). Parsley Man (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the reasons stated already; this is becoming a very heavily-covered story in the media and the trial will likely become another media-event. 68.19.7.65 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavily", how, exactly? Other than a few things trickling out in the local Seattle news as follow-up (and the wire services mirroring same) the story is pretty much widespread-dead for days now. Trial will probably be covered, but no one can know how big it will be, and we shouldn't speculate, and can't predict per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a news-story article that isn't likely to get any bigger or go much further. Hence, the reason why WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM, as policies, exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You know, a similar murder happened in my hometown of San Diego, where a woman was murdered and cut up, with the body parts being stuffed into a suitcase. Now, I would like to know why that doesn't have an article while this one does. Parsley Man (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that case, beyond a few days' news cycle, wasn't any more notable than this one? (I assume you question was rhetorical) :-). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Also, I would also like to add that the San Diego murder was also recent. Parsley Man (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think remember reading something about it a seek or so ago. See? Like most news stories of this kind: shocking but soon forgotten. Which brings me to another thought about why this article shouldn't exist:WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego murder has no article as it is not notable. Notamemorial bans memorial articles. This is not a memorial article. Are you trying to ban the 9-11 article because it memorializes it.....NOOOOO! For some reason, this event is covered in many countries, even non-English speaking countries while many murders are not. Maybe because it is notable by Wikipedia standards? Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it's gruesome and shocking news sells. clpo13_(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego murder was gruesome too. Why no article there? Also, Whiskeymouth, you're not making a very good case for yourself. Just because multiple countries are covering doesn't exactly mean it's that notable by Wikipedia standards. Parsley Man (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am surprised by how many articles there are on this. It's a nasty crime, but, at the risk of sounding insensitive, not particularly unusual as far as murders go. Dismemberment isn't an uncommon way to dispose of a body. clpo13_(talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean lone victims who were dismembered? Or serial killers who dismember their victims? Parsley Man (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fairly rare, the first one probably moreso (though many serial killers are unknown). But still many cases, in sheer numbers. All very uncommon next to billions of butchered breakfast animals, and all lacking the grisliness/gruesomeness/newsworthiness of human torsos where humans buy breakfast. The facts are sketchy, but that doesn't stop Sweeney Todd from being an article. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons stated already.
Keep - Heavily covered in American national news + international sources per @Whiskeymouth:. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per rationale stated by Whiskeymouth. This article meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage in multiple local, national, and international publications and websites. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless it's turned into an article about the whole thing. Simply changing the title doesn't cut it. As the passive role, hers is smaller than her killer's, who doesn't deserve a bio from one event, either. Neither does the lead investigator, the judge, the witness, the juror, the bailiff, the reporter, the accomplice nor the sheriff. But there's potentially a place for facts on everyone here, so long as they're pertinent to the widely-but-not-deeply covered case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:HEY demand has been met, the article has in fact been moved to Murder of Ingrid Lyne, an article about a murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting closer. Still has a biography infobox, the lead still treats her as the topic and the Backgrounds section still skews the focus onto her. "Disappearance and death" subtitle implies the main title is still "Ingrid Lyne". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guidance under WP:VICTIM seems pretty clear and on point. I'm also not seeing any lasting effect or wide-scale geographic impact that might qualify the murder under WP:EVENT. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that WP:LASTING impact is not required, neither is "wide-scale geographic impact" (WP:GEOSCOPE). What is required is "significant or WP:INDEPTH coverage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article fails WP:VICTIM but also WP:PORNSTAR and WP:POLITICIAN. This is because the article is about an event, not a victim, pornstar (people involved are a nurse and a homeless man), or politician (nurse and homeless man). It does qualify under event as evidenced by worldwide coverage, even in the Italian language press. Therefore, Keep. Again, I understand the frustration that some have but such frustration should be discussed systemwide in Wikipedia regarding what articles we want. If we want to no longer have murders and porn stars and video games, except for the truly historic murders and porn stars, then this is a valid discussion point but not an AFD. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to pass this one by, it seemed merely to be an unusually macabre boyfriend murder, widely covered out of mere ghoulishness. But then I saw the bit in the article about internet dating sites. Googled it for myself, there really has been coverage of that angle, reported coverage in places far from the murder scene [12], and close to home [13]. Plus extent and intensity of coverage really do make it more than a routine news story. passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Event" I see editors arguing for keeping the article are doing so by claiming it is a notable "event". Wikipedia guidelines on the notability of an event can be found here and are as follows:
- "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This murder is not such and cannot be predicted to become such per WP:CRYSTAL.
- "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections." This murder is not such in this case, either.
- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Does not qualify.
- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting." This murder does not qualify in this capacity, either. All reporting on this has been "in passing" and with the typical news-cycle, not in-depth.
- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This murder has not received significant coverage other than a few mirror mentions from Seattle-area reporting and none of it qualifies as ongoing.
- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted...where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability." No significant national or international news coverage beyond a typical news-cycle. This murder fails here, as well.
- "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines." The coverage does not meet the above guidelines, just as the murder does not meet the above guidelines for WP:EVENT and cannot be considered such to justify having and keeping the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This article actually meets two or three of your bullet points! Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but please elaborate how you think it meets those points. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage, more than a 24 hour news cycle but over a week and more, featured in Time (which is mentioned as a criteria). I realize that Wikipedia has articles like these so frustration should be directed at re-defining Wikipedia, not through an AFD of an article that meets the standards. I easily found more countries where there is coverage and the coverage is different. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing what you claim to be seeing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Whiskeymouth, BabbaQ and others. The online dating issue is a relevant angle and I think that it meets GNG based upon adequate news coverage from independent sources. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps this can be reassessed in six months to see if the "debate" over internet dating is still kicking along, but at the moment we have the usual flurry of routine coverage that most gruesome crimes get. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Look at the refs. On the other hand, I really regret getting involved in this page (with a casual renaming) at the beginning. It's worthy of a basic page, but it's not worthy enough for all this effort and dsicussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This certainly could still use better attention and thus I am relisting and commenting myself afterwards to help achieve consensus SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as the article certainly seems informative and sourced but I still question how solid and acceptable this is for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Ambani[edit]

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

All symptoms of paid editing here... There are articles on all this person's siblings and his parents. His father is undoubtedly notable, but notability is not inherited. Apart from being the son of his father, Anant's claim to fame seems to be based on the fact that he lost a lot of weight, which seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Article has a deceptively large number of references. However, most are not about this person, but either about his father or one of his companies. Those that are about Anand Ambani are short and in passing and concentrate on the weight loss, or they are blog posts. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject fails relevant guidelines due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure we don't have a category of how to become notable for weight loss, but the coverage about him is extensive, and so I think people want to know more about him. Leave it with a banner asking for better references.Bruriyah (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello! While the WP:BLP1E applies here, I think other sources are relevant enough for the personality's page to be live. As mentioned by Bruriyah above, the coverage on his weight loss is extensive, and the article fulfils WP:BASIC. Please consider keeping the article with a tag for additional sources. Sonixgirl (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. The lead of the articles tries to establish notability using his family. About weight loss coverage, to avoid WP:BLP1E, he should at least have been nominated in some records books about losing highest weight in smallest time, or something of that sorts. Till something of that sort happens, or till he does something notable on his own, the subject does not pass notability for wikipedia. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed unnecessary info about siblings from the lead section. ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may become notable again in a few years but as it stands, not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The single event mentioned here does not make it notable per WP:BLP1E, as many editors have pointed out; it may be notable in the future. Moving it into a draft for a time of six months (the general tenure) and then deleting it would be wiser. Having said that, WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. If drafting is an issue, then delete. Best, Nairspecht Converse 06:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED & WP:BLP1E. Vipinhari || talk 10:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Being poorly referenced isn;t a valid reason, Obviously BEFORE wasn't followed so closing as SK (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sobhita Dhulipala[edit]

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

Poor references Desertedtense (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all notability requirements. Remember, WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. If there isn't enough sources, add more, don't go straight to afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. There are sources out there on her. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Meets WP:GNG criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Ilias Orfanidis[edit]

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

Does not currently meet the general notability guideline or the the sportspeople-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Couldn't find any sources. Non-notable per WP:ATH. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as above. He might become notable in the future, but not now. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:21, 21 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovik Kendi[edit]

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

All the usual alarm bells are set off here. Started by single-purpose account LudovikKendi (cough, cough) and seeming sockpuppet Shoegal? Check. Glossy self-submitted photos and publicist's tone? Check. "Sourcing" that ranges from cruft to directory entries to personal websites to advertisements to PR materials to passing mentions in government-issued bulletins? It's all there. "Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Check! Per excellent analysis of Biruitorul. --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources establish notability under WP:NM. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I saw this title in the AfD list, my initial thought was 'hoax!', based on the similarity to the late British broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy. I've not come across Ludovik as a Romanian name, but it seems he was born 'Lajos', which is Hungarian. As to notability, I think not. Performing under the direction of a notable conductor (Simon Rattle) is not notable unless perhaps you were one of the soloists in a big work. Being an 'ensemble member' is equivalent to being in the chorus line or corps de ballet. I get the feeling this is a promo piece by the subject to try to hasten the day when his notability will come. It probably will - he's done some roles like Tonio already. He just needs that break that even the talented need. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biruitorul did a good explanation there. I searched for him, really nothing came up (Besides his own website and a couple other things). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if he becomes more notable in the future, reliable sources will arise and there won't be a need for a COI editor to recreate the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Lafond[edit]

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

Apparently minor actor, with his supposedly best-known-for roles including "Carnival Patron" and "Student". Only secondary sources given are him being captioned-in-passing in a local paper as a woman's son-in-law, and being quoted about painting a mural with other teenagers in 2005. Fails WP:BASIC. McGeddon (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC and does not meet WP:NACTOR. The roles in notable films have not been significant, and general coverage is non-existent. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. imdb shows a series of small, mostly uncredited parts. imdb biography (not reliable) used as principal reference. Other references mention subject but are not really about him. ubiquity (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and my searches really didn't find much. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article can be recreated when there are more notable coverages. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as comprehensively failing WP:NBIO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better at all for any solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as article has been G5 speedy deleted?Coolabahapple (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mdhashim24. --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 18 April 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. Sources seem to say otherwise so closing as Keep

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group[edit]

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

Not notable, a small fringe organisation. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches come up mostly blank, only 499 hits on google India. Not many sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article Karaikal Union territory struggle group

Karaikal Union Territory Struggle Group, the article which can provide lots of information about Karaikal's problems being under the control of Puducherry U.T, oppurtunities given for puducherry and karaikal. if this article is deleted , many info about the proposed Union territory's problem and struggles will be unknown to everyone. --wiki tamil 100 12:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)

@Wiki tamil 100: Just to let you know If you are arguing in favour of keeping the article you should write keep in bold like I have below AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a lot of sources found using the Indian English Newspaper Search Engine. Sources from major national and regional newspapers AusLondonder (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! I too visited the pagelinks. Now this are the sources for the struggle group. so the wiki needs are fulfilled.--wiki tamil 100 16:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki tamil 100 (talk • contribs)

Keep - notable subject. That said, the article needs significant improvement. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], more at the Indian English Newspaper Search Engine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a fair argument for the only claim to notability being the BLP1E issue of the conviction. But a) after an extended debate there is no consensus on this point; and b) this is essentially a replica of the preceding debate from last month. A "no consensus" result does not preclude a subsequent nomination, but please wait a credible amount of time in order for a new consensus to evolve. Otherwise we will be repeating this discussion, with the same result, ad nauseum. Euryalus (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene McMann[edit]

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

In the end this is someone who ran a minor charity, engaged in a lot of self-promotion and over-entitled behaviour, got caught, and is now back to being an average Jane. I think that an article on the charity and its demise might be supportable, but a biography on a minor one-time criminal, which is what this is, seems to me to be a very bad idea. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the last AfD only closed 3 weeks ago, I wonder if it is likely that we will achieve a consensus this time around? --Cahk (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy reject: Seriously? I'm pretty sure a felony is not a minor crime. It's far too soon to be having this discussion, and again, I am against bowing to the legal demands of editors. --Tarage (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have two sources about the charity which are marginal at best—I think it's reaching a bit to call this "significant coverage"—and a few news articles on her sentencing, all of which seem to be the attorney general's press release lightly rearranged. The embezzlement alone would absolutely not meet the WP:CRIM guideline; I don't think adding the minimal coverage of the charity pre-scandal really makes this a notable biography. (Contra the previous poster, in the 21st Century, the range of crimes classified "felonies" is so broad as to confer no particular distinction; might I suggest we consider the question of the article's notability strictly on its merits, rather than making this some kind of demonstration of You Can't Threaten Us?) Choess (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said at the AfD a few weeks ago. If the furore about the sockpuppetry and Ms McMann wanting the article removed did not exist, this would be a simple delete on notability grounds. Laura Jamieson (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has nothing to do with the sockpuppetry and all behind this, but the simple fact that Ms. McCann does not seem to meet the standards for notability. This was my reason in the previous AfD, and it remains still. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my last vote and the first time I nominated this. I do sympathize with the viewpoint that we shouldn't bow to threats, but keeping an article on that basis alone is kinda pointy.—Chowbok ☠ 14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If we're only going to have another AfD discussion in a month or so if this results in an NC or a keep which seems to be reason we're here again, why not bow to the pressure of McMann and the socks and just delete the thing now and get it over with. After thinking long and hard on this one and checking out the information about more than two AfD nominations and how extremely rare this procedure should be, I agree with Liz below. The first AfD was a keep which IMO SHOULD have ended it, (notability is not temporary re: WP:GNG) the second was an NC. I realize it is bad publicity for the subject and there are extenuating ~~circumstances~~ pressures to bin the article (various threats and the like)... but enough is enough. She was clearly notable in 2011 being a Jefferson Award winner in addition to her office with the charity and with the felony conviction of multiple (<-THIS is what I believe would negate the BLP1E claim as this happened over two years) abuses of that office to the tune of over $40,000, she is not less notable now.~~We have more important things to do.~~ I have a difficult time with the argument that this was a minor charity. Over $2 million had been raised, hardly a minor amount of money. Regards, Aloha27 talk 18:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this Jefferson Award is a local thing like a local emmy in her case -- not really that special in terms of notability. This debate reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination) (2009). Howard's son wrote an article about him, and it was teetering, but then some enemies of his dad, or really friends (or children of friends) of his dad's enemy who had saved them in Nazi Germany in the 1940s (no joke!), descended on the article to add cites about some criminal convictions. Finally the son rightfully begged to delete the article unless his mother commit suicide over the whole thing. Just so here. She's a two bit criminal, frankly, people embezzle money all the time, its not an unusual crime conferring notability. In her work, she was simply a competent professional, aimed at brushing her credentials. I am a super inclusionist, but articles like this one really hurt nonbodies who thought they were somebody. So I beg anyone reading this to listen to this evil inclusionsist, and let Charlene go. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin McGillis (2010); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2014).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, you have voiced your opinion below.I'm not sure that expressing it again over top of others (a la Dr.Chrissy [here]is helpful. I would suggest cutting your further argument above and pasting it where your vote is below. Regards, Aloha27 talk 12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put it there because I sensed your !vote is important to the outcome of this discussion. I can only hope you and others will consider my points.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be VERY careful here Milo. VERY careful indeed. You've been around more than long enough to know that you're real close IMO to violating WP:CANVASS, if you haven't already done so. I am also having a difficult time with the ~~possible~~ confirmed (and blocked) latest McMann sockpuppet Mindimoo (talk · contribs) attempting to put an edit here in your comment. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it also seems clear to me that you have a dog in this fight given your repeated rebuttals of others' opinions. In addition, I have a serious problem with the fact at the latest sockpuppet account was created at 13:19, your last edit was at 13:31 and the sockpuppet posted in your message at 14:02. Sock also posted at 15:45 on another talk page. If you have a COI here, now would be the time to 'fess up. DUCK? Regards, Aloha27 talk 14:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be VERY careful..."? lol, please be assured I am not socking nor canvassing for this poor ass woman. I go on rants at times when I see something I believe is going wrong, I used to be active in AFD but am rarely in this neck of the woods these days. If people think some puffery and a local award + a felony conviction make her notable, she's arguably getting what she deserves. But she's also a non-notable human being now stuck with the first google result for her lifetime being her conviction.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG - Chicago Sun-Times, NBC, Fox all in the references. Unused references include the Daily Herald and The Examiner. Radio host and author. In 2011 there was a KEEP AfD, and this was before there was the additional notability of the criminal activity. WP:CRIME does not apply, as the notability was granted for the work as a philanthropist before any accusation . Scr★pIron^IV 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of repetition of facts in news reports turns the information into secondary source information. Lots of newspapers saying the same thing points to WP:NOTNEWS. I examined the sources, and did further source searching, and they don't meet the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But might you lean towards refactoring as an article about the (short-lived) charity? That is, after all, the context for all the coverage. I'm mindful here that the pre-conviction article, as written by her husband, was blatant promotion (in fact I would have acceptef a WP:CSD#G11 if it had been so tagged). Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 1st AfD resulted in Keep, the 2nd was No consensus and, if anything, McMann is more notable than she was in 2011 when this article was kept. I also don't like follow-up AfDs, hot on the heels of an earlier AfD, that seeks a different resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made some minor adjustments to the citations. I should also mention an AIV thread is in parallel to this Afd.--Cahk (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds as we just had a discussion on this; Keep on the merits as the sources seem to be there and further we should not cave to legal threats made in this case. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But should the article be about the charity, rather than a biography? That would be much less problematic, IMO. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that would help, I could live with it, but I think she is more notable than the charity, though admittedly I probably don't know everything about the charity. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that if she made a proper request for the article to be removed(as stated in the previous AfD) I could live with that as well- but this person seems to only be interested in legal threats(and has been blocked for said threats). 331dot (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only thing she is notable for is the crime, which is BLP1E. As for other comments - "I'm pretty sure a felony is not a minor crime." If everyone convicted of a felony was notable, get ready for 10 million new articles overnight. Even much more reported on criminals like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Swanberg (2nd nomination) (2009) get deleted. If there is an article on blood cancer fundraising charities as a topic, perhaps this minor sordid affair can be mentioned once. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the "now-defunct Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation" is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, the only reason to have an article on a co-founder is to highlight the conviction. There is no prospect of developing the article and key biographical information is unlikely to ever be available. Given that Wikipedia is not a directory of convictions (and WP:BLP1E), there is no encyclopedic purpose to this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true now, originally the purpose was to build her personal brand (her husband started the article and most of the edits have been rather obviously connected). Guy (Help!) 09:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she wasn't notable when she was promoting the article herself, now that she has been convicted of a crime major enough to hit the mainstream media, she has become notable. I'd say congratulations to her, her article has become notable, as she initially desired. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC (pretty significant coverage if we combine all the sources) and WP:ANYBIO (recipient of a notable award) Rentier (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly lots of people get convicted of embezzlement, or taking kickbacks. There are currently 13 Detroit Public Schools (my primary employer) employees indicted on charges of taking kickbacks. McMann's contributions on the cancer fight are minor and do not rise to the level of making her notable. The additional information on the embezlement guilty plea does not move her from being a non-notable local voice in anti-cancer research fundraising to somehow being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last discussion closed "no consensus since people were not really discussing the right issues", so to keep on procedural grounds makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the original deletion discussion it did not close as keep because of any good arguments, but because of weak ones that actually argue for deletion. One is "the local NBC affiliate is a source" which to me sounds like "only local coverage, not enough to pass GNG". Another is "we have articles on porn stars and athletes, we should have ones on philanthropists as well", which does not in any way address notability arguements and amounts to "other stuff exists". We should not let weak articles on living people sit around because they were allowed to sit around 5 years ago. Wikipedia has too many promotional articles on living people and too few on historical people who actually had significant impacts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that her husband started the article should make us more likely to delete it. We have stringent guidelines on creating articles on yourself or immediate family members because doing so is normally a form of unmerited promotion and also because it leads to even worse systemic over-coverage of some areas (read the US) and undercoverage of other areas (read Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). If we are serious about combating systemic inequities in coverage we will delete all borderline articles created by relatives.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - After a spin around the Google, I find the BLP-1E argument to be compelling. Take that away and this is a GNG fail.~~ Carrite (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jefferson Award for Public Service sounds like a pretty big deal. The "Nobel Prize for Public Service", they call it. The conviction just adds to the notability. Rentier (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP piece McMann is only listed as one of about 75 members of the "Board of Selectors." The piece notes there are national Jefferson Awards, which seem to be a big deal, and local awards, which do not. In searching CHARLENE MCMANN + JEFFERSON AWARD, I do easily find THIS published source of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the subject (NBC Channel 5, Chicago), which combined with the copious coverage of the legal issues does seem to get us to the "multiple" sources we need to pass GNG. So I will strike and start again. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence she won a national award (she is not listed on the Jefferson Award for Public Service article) -- it appears to be a local version, a nice thing but one of many such awards any community has, and the linked article says she was a "finalist" for it, so its not even clear what she won. Her puffery of her self-worth should not deceive us now that she's also a felon.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the award itself, it is coverage related to the award — which when combined with the legal matter defeats the BLP-1E argument, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she did win the award in 2008. NBC 5 News--Cahk (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cahk, thanks for that link. But there's no evidence this is the national award, correct? The channel of that youtube channel is "JeffersonAwardsChicago". This video on the same channel [19] says she was one of five people to be honored, and NBC5 (Chicago) (the source of the video) hosted the awards. They aren't independent of them. And at the end of that video, the host forgets who won it (lol), and correct himself to say it was Charlene. But it seems to be a local award only. And other than NBC5's obligatory coverage as the sponsor, I'm not finding any Chicago news outlet coverage of her winning the award. Indeed, I've searched the archives of the Chicago Tribune and can't find that they've ever mentioned Charlene McMann, which is highly unusual if she is a notable figure in that city. The Sun Times did cover her conviction plea-deal in one article, but that's it. (And a one sentence blurb in the Sun Times in 2010 noted that she was chairing the 2010 event.[20]) (You know these videos we cite were uploaded in 2013, five years after Charlene won, I bet she helped get them uploaded.) Typically when I'm trying to save articles at AFD, I do it by finding local coverage in newspaper archives; here I'm finding the opposite. My primary point, however, is that I think this local Jefferson Award is small potatoes based on a review of the coverage, and should count minimally towards notability, regardless of the fact that its unlikely I'm going to sway the AFD outcome at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This was only nominated a month ago.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On the grounds that the 2nd Afd only closed very recently with NC. Nothing significant has changed between then and now. If anything, Ms. McMann is trying (in vain, may I add) to sway the vote to delete the article despite multiple user socks and IP socks.--Cahk (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We just had one of these.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is POV pushing. one AfD was held less than a month ago. this person passes per WP:GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Subjects of article do not get to dictate to Wikipedia whether or not they have articles, even less so if they are convicted criminals. Suggest permanent semi-protection will go a long way towards preventing any COI issues. Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. I second the semi-protection. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article pass WP:GNG? Yes. Should Wikipedia document notable individuals fairly, despite the sentiments of its subject, or other users? Yes. Is the article biased in its current form? I disagree. Therefore, keep. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while a felony is all too common, fraud of this kind and size is unusual. Protection is warranted. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL, several sources but all a primary source news reports, there is no depth of story in any source. The article is an orphan (disregarding name links). Wikipedia is not a repository of news-reported criminals. Wait until there is secondary source material from independent sources discussing the subject in some depth. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Blood Cancer Foundation

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD as no consensus at first, but then was alerted that the nomination had already been closed and then later undone less than 24 hours ago. Hence why I'm relisting this. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing that she is notable is for stealing so much on a cancer charity that she has to pay $55860. I believe that if this is the only content that could be added then it could never be able to achieve a neutral point of view. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E is reason enough. The BCF is barely notably in of itself. This article is clearly causing the subject undue stress. IAR, show some compassion and delete this article.15:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.183.220 (talk)

Why hello there IP user whose only other edit to Wikipedia was vandalism. Aloha27 talk 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) If consensus doesn't go your way, you do NOT get to keep repeating the discussion until it reaches the conclusion you want. There are good reasons why nominations of this kind are speedily closed and I'm not thrilled to see milquetoast sysops pussyfooting around with it. (2) If you write an article about your wife and get Wikipedia to publish it, you do NOT get to remove that article just because it suddenly starts to tell the truth. (3) Our BLP rules prevent us from publishing unsourced negative information about living people. Well-sourced negative information about living people is just fine, and well within scope for Wikipedia. I see these reasons as quite overwhelming, and Sandstein's unexplained and unilateral reversal of the previous, excellent close requires explanation.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. The delete-camps arguments simply don't hold water. Also, I'm a little concerned about vote stacking here as well. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ironically, the article probably should have been deleted prior to the latest incident -- it was a little light on significant coverage. However, while this incident alone isn't enough to meet notability requirements, it added enough sources to the existing coverage to qualify it under WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:05, 15 April 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyle Wolfe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN singer, fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. While the AfD ten years ago closed with sentiments common at the time such as "Keep as stub simply needing more info," that info simply isn't out there. The sources in the article mention the subject only in passing, and lack the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires, leading to the various "unsourced" tags that have been on it for years.

G-News turns up only two hits, both from the same local paper, and both the typical "These guys are performing tonight" releases explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as supporting notability. [21][22]. Top G-hits include this article, his website, his YouTube page, his iTunes page, his MySpace page, his Spotify page, his Amazon page, his Allmusic page, his Reverbnation page, his Twitter feed, his last.fm page, and (amusingly) a link to singersforhire.com. The article was created by User:Aaronmawolfe, a SPA for whom this was his sole Wikipedia edit, and for which COI's an obvious conclusion to draw. Ravenswing 07:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests any better satisfying notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 03:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning to a "weak keep". This article needs drastic pruning. It's pretty obviously either an autobiography or written by someone very close to the subject. Much of the "information" in the early years section is not published anywhere else. However, note that he has a reasonably long entry in the Großes Sängerlexikon [23]. He sang the lead role in a full length performance of The Pirates of Penzance which was broadcast on RTE [24] and has sung principal roles in multiple performances at the Musiktheater im Revier reviewed in the German press (Die Tageszeitung, Sonntags-Nachrichten, Deutschlandfunk ), e.g. [25], [26] and [27]. He's also sung for Opera Ireland (which inexplicably doesn't have an article yet) with reviews in Opera here and here,

Update I have virtually stubbed the article (keeping the references). It was blatant copyvio from the subject's website. I'll add some of the references I've put here and then we'll see. But the career emerging isn't a frightfully significant one, I'm afraid. Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd already seen those sources, and I was unimpressed enough to file the AfD. The problem is that those reviews are for the productions, and don't discuss Wolfe in significant detail ... and not really at all beyond "Yeah, this guy was in it too and did his bit," of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability. I don't doubt the guy exists, and I don't doubt he's a performer, but we need reliable sources giving "significant coverage" to the subject, and not to operas in which he's sung. Ravenswing 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1) It's long-standing practice that artists with articles in Grove are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia; this singer has an entry in Kutsch/Riemens, a similar reference work. 2) He has performed major roles on notable stages as requested by WP:MUSBIO #6. 3) His performances in world and national premieres should satisfy #10. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, the sources given are not about him but about productions he was in and two are regional repots at that, and unlikely to pass WP:RS. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um..., how could a subject with an entry in a highly regarded German reference work on classical vocalists be considered not notable? If specialist encyclopedias cover a topic, than Wikipedia should too.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not notable enough. this wikipedia article is just some free advertising for him. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Searches find some reliable sources, so this should be kept. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and sourced, with additional sources out there. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (just) per Michael Bednarek now that worst excesses have been pruned. -- Smerus (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Breisacher[edit]

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

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an obituary in a national paper such as the New York Times is generally considered proof of notability, especially for someone who died in 1934. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Credit is due for the expansion of the article, with more on the way. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would that be? This? AusLondonder (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing references used for notability and those used to source a fact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse given none of the references appear to prove notability. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and more broadly fails WP:GNG. A single obituary does not equate to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Being a Mayor for a year and a post-master simply are not credible claims to significance. The other source from the New York Times is absurd. It is simply his name in a list of appointments of postmasters AusLondonder (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given the time frame, I think I agree with RAN that the obituary in the NYT is a strong single source. The other, non-obituary, sources are weaker, but enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altoona Tribune is also an obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've read WP:GNG, Hobit. I'm sure you're aware of the requirement for "significant coverage" rather than a mention after his death AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage ≠ pre-mortem coverage. It "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It doesn't care if the coverage is pre-mortem or post-mortem. If contemporary coverage is needed we have to delete the article on Ötzi and Cheddar Man.

I think it is significant coverage and considerably more than a mention. If we had another article with significant coverage (and ideally IMO, not another obituary) I'd say it's a clear keep given the time frame etc. Hobit (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN Wormcast (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bergenfield is less than ten miles west of Yonkers, so The New York Times represents local coverage in the local media — the local newspaper would be expected to publish an obituary of a former local mayor who had died, so that's just WP:ROUTINE. If the context in which a local media outlet is covering a person doesn't pass WP:NPOL in and of itself, then the distribution range of that local media outlet does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie — the places where the coverage is coming from, not the readership range of the local media, is what has to nationalize to get a person like this over the "more notable than the norm" hump. If an obituary had been published in a newspaper in Chicago, Seattle, Miami or Los Angeles, there'd be an inclusion case — but a smalltown political figure is not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because The New York Times happens to be his local newspaper. So no, nothing here is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times in not a local paper, otherwise it would have the obituary of every mayor of the town he lived in and every other mayor of surrounding towns, which it does not. The New York Times is an international paper and does not print local obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling us George was an "international" figure now? I'm certain everyone in Nepal has heard of his legendary one-year term as Mayor of a small town in New Jersey. AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love when people write "So you're telling us ..." I love the "Nepal standard" for what makes something international. I am going to use that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times most certainly would print obituaries of local notables. That's part of their job, as they are still a local newspaper with local coverage sections — but that fact does not instantly reify the obituary topics into national notables just because it's the NYT. If it did, we'd have to keep an article about every single food truck in Williamsburg that ever got reviewed by the NYT's restaurant critic — but we don't, because the NYT is still subject to the same test for the context of the coverage as any other newspaper is. If the NYT is acting locally, providing its local readership with local coverage of local things, then it doesn't count for more than any other newspaper doing that same thing. If the NYT were obiting a person who'd been the mayor of a small town in Wyoming, that could be evidence of greater notability because it's geographically removed from where WP:ROUTINE coverage would be expected to be found — but if they're obiting the mayor of a small town that's inside their own local coverage area, then that doesn't show nationalized interest. A smalltown mayor has to be substantively shown to be more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors, but "the local newspaper printed an obituary" is not the correct kind of more. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not established that the NYT would print obits of any local mayor besides this one. Where is the evidence to support either position? We need more than assertions. Alansohn's argument is just as logically persuasive as yours. If the NYT would not normally print an obit of a local mayor, then its inclusion here would be a clear mark of notability regardless of its local origin. If either position is so obvious, then it should be easy to support with external evidence. -- RM 03:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof rests on the extraordinary claim — local media, the world over, routinely and consistently publish obituaries of local figures when those local figures die, so the evidentiary burden would fall on the claim that The New York Times is not like other local media in that regard. It's Alansohn's responsibility to demonstrate that The New York Times would not normally publish obituaries of local mayors, and thus singled Breisacher out for special treatment above and beyond normal for some reason — but he hasn't shown proof of that, he's simply asserted it without proof. And no reason why Breisacher might have warranted being singled out as more notable than most other mayors of places in NYC's metropolitan area has actually been shown, either in this discussion or in the article, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Bearcat, the argument that The New York Times is a local paper that prints obituaries for every mayor of every one of the 500 or so boroughs, cities, towns and villages within 10 miles of New York City -- and so should be systematically ignored -- is ludicrous on its face. While Bearcat demands that obituaries can only be accepted if printed in papers 1,000 to 3,000 miles away from one's hometown -- and even then it's a maybe -- AusLondonder insists that a person can only be notable if they are known by every single resident of the nation of Nepal. In both cases, imposition of either of these arbitrary and irrational standards contradicts policy. AusLondonder is a newbie, but Bearcat is an admin with several hundred thousand edits. Alansohn (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, it's not ludicrous at all: it's how NPOL works. A mayor gets a Wikipedia article in one of two ways: either they're the mayor of a major city, or the coverage of them nationalizes into something way outside the bounds of WP:ROUTINE coverage in the local media. The path for a smalltown mayor to get a Wikipedia article does not include getting a freebie on purely localized coverage just because of the technicality that the local paper happens to be the New York Times rather than the Palookaville Herald — the range of coverage has to nationalize. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Altoona Tribune source is not an obituary in the usual sense but a death notice amongst several others. AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a German emigrant who became mayor of a NJ city. Two newspaper sources. A pre-Internet person. Freda Martial (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A paid death notice is not a credible source. Suggesting that being a German mayor of a "city" (actually a town of a few thousand people then, 26,000 now) is a reason to keep is satirical. AusLondonder (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a paid death notice, it is a standard New York Times obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like this person is notable, considering how long ago he lived, and there's probably a lot more info in newspapers of his time that just hasn't been included here. Too early in the article's development to delete. Needs improvement but deletion is an overreach. Rockypedia (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the discussion I have raised regarding sources at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability question AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can anyone provide a copy of the New York Times obituary? I'd like to see how detailed it is, but my archive access only goes back to 1980. I'm concerned that the other sources cited only mention Breisacher in passing, so if the NYT coverage isn't more in-depth, then I am inclined to suggest deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cordless Larry the article is one column wide and 16 lines long. It mentions his position as mayor and as postmaster giving dates but no additional details. It mentions his cause of death, his age, and lists his surviving relatives. That is all. I will email you a copy of the PDF version if you ask -- I won't post it generally. (I have NYT archive access back to 1851 I think.) I don't think this obit alone establishes notability, not the way a longer and more detailed obit would. It does indicate some degree of note being taken, and some facts which might point to notability on a more detailed, offline search in my view. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, DESiegel. In light of this, I don't think the subject meets our criteria based on the sources that have been found. I therefore say delete, and if offline sources establishing notability subsequently emerge, then the article can be recreated based on these. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAlthough the New York Times has become a national newspaper, the obit seems to be more of a regional coverage of someone who died in a suburb of New York City. I don't see any other serious claims of notability. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep unless this is refuted. WP:GNG is barely satisfied (as per Hobit) only if the local-only clause of WP:NPOL cannot be invoked. There seems to be clear consensus that being in the NYT makes a strong case for notability. At crux here is whether or not the obituary is submitted by the paper itself as worthy news or if the paper accepts obits by any external entity, and whether or not the paper typically lists the obituary for other local politicians of the same position. I've seen cases here arguing both positions, but nothing definitive/proven. As per being an inclusionist, I don't see any harm keeping the article around for a while until this issue can be determined more definitively. -- RM 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Strong Keep. WP:ROUTINE is the guideline of the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Being news is not a valid reason for inclusion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there exists encyclopedias of history. The reason for inclusion is history, not news. It is not too soon. As history, an obituary is a perfectly reasonable reliable source. WP:NPOL does not apply either, because the references imply that the subject is not just a politician, but is known for other things. The guide states "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics.". Even if locality is proven we still do not have enough evidence that he is non-notable under NPOL. Due to the age, we can't use a lazy google search to determine non-notability. WP:NPOL also allows an exception for WP:GNG, and there is enough reliable information from multiple independent sources to justify inclusion of the historical subject. No valid reason is left to delete. -- RM 11:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable historic figure, and reliably sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG with multiple, reliable independent sources.--TM 15:01, 18 April 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 Although the validity of his ministry can be questioned there are multiple adequate sources as to the content of the article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cox (Catholic bishop)[edit]

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

There has been some BLP-related discussion of this article concerning claims that Cox performed sham marriages for minors, and this has led to closer examination of the rest of the article. What I'm seeing is that almost nothing about him is verifiable and notable except for the Sinead O'Connor ordination; there is some small activity on him in the Irish papers but I'm tending to the view that this material either presents BLP issues or isn't important. The claims about his affiliation in the article are almost certainly false, and either represent incorrect supposition on the part of editors or have no source at all. Ordinarily this would turn into a redirect but the other problem is that he isn't a "Catholic bishop" in the sense that most people would take that, and it's not clear that he even claims to be; he is a textbook example of an episcopus vagans. At the moment I would argue that he is a WP:BLP1E footnote in he singer's bio. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a supposition that we should have an article, or at least a stub, on every bishop of "mainstream" churches but that the same shouldn't apply to bishops of other denominations or independent bishops. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply: Cox's ordination of O'Connor has been covered by international media and was still being mentioned years later.^[1] His consecration of Bishop Pat Buckley was also newsworthy in the UK and Ireland.^[2] He has received Irish media attention for his 'anti-abortion' ship; and for his stance on Traveller weddings. Sources exist for all of these. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: where do you find Cox's "stance on Traveller weddings"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BoBoMisiu:, in a Traveller's magazine, now included in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Undecided. WP:BLP1E. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES states: "bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status", Cox is not such a bishop. Cox is known for being the man who ordained Sinead O'Connor and for conducting ceremonies involving Irish Travellers children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not legally married (see relevant discussion on BLP noticeboard); i.e. "the weddings have no legal standing."[28]

The first article cited by Bastun, directly above, mentions Cox once – for ordaining O'Connor. The second article mentions Cox twice – for consecrating Buckley, which points out a "controversy over the validity of his consecration", and for ordaining O'Connor. O'Connor has a separate article in which Cox is mentioned.

I think something about Cox and Buckley should be included in the Irish Travellers § Marriage section. Circa 1999, Cox and Buckley founded, what some news articles call, the "Latin Tridentine Church."[29] Cox ministers to Travellers.[30] Traveler practise child marriage.[31][32][33] In 2002, Buckley "defended his right to give blessings to teenagers as young as 14, after it was reported he performed a ceremony involving a 15-year-old Traveller."[34] "We have had cases like this before whereby the children actually believe they are legally married and it has taken a lot of effort to unwrangle everything," according to Father Stephen Monaghan, a Travellers' parish priest.[35] There is a common thread of some kind of ceremonies involving children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not.

Per User:BD2412 (below) it could be interesting. If the controversies are included. I think I found many of the online sources about him but found only single phrases or single sentences about what he believes – it is mostly controversy. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC); modified 21:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first article I came across. The fact is, there are hundreds of such articles mentioning Cox. WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is, of course, a red herring - it is an essay, which "summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects." The fact remains that Cox is more notable than many Catholic bishops. I think you may be a little biased on this issue, BoBo. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: everyone has biases including me. Cox is far less notable than most Catholic bishops and not in the same category – they minister up to millions of people. His controversies are his notability. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- because he is a controversial figure. I thought that canonical consecration of bishops required it to be performed by three of them. The validity of his consecration and of thus of his episcopal acts may well be questioned, but that is not a matter that WP needs to determine. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: thank you for comment. It made me think about changing my vote if more reliably sourced controversial content can be retained. Please look through the BLP noticeboard discussion and comment on some of those sources. Doubt about his consecration is only one controversy, another is about "some kind of ceremonies involving children who are under the impression that they are married when they are in fact not" as I described above. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on an AFD, which is about potential deletion, which I consider inappropriate. BLP issues should be resolved by editing, not by deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable even if I don't like him. VanEman (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not demonstrate notability. Bishops in major religions ar notable because they head a notable eccesiatcial structure. This article gives little evidence that anyone actually recognizes Cox's eccesiastical authority, and even less that he heads a significant eccesiastical sturcture with multiple parishes and priests under him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Pack Lambert is confusing bureaucracy with notability. Someone can be notable without have a large organizational structure under them. They don't have to have accomplished anything to be notable. But they do need to be of interest to people and have enough written about them. That is the case here. So keep it. VanEman (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep having Catholic Bishop in the title might be confusing, it is to me. But this person is highly notable. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TeeVeeed:, please note there was already a Requested Move discussion ongoing when someone jumped the gun and AFD'ed the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Cox is far less notable than most Catholic bishops and not in the same category – they minister up to millions of people"; "sources do not demonstrate notability. Bishops in major religions ar notable because they head a notable eccesiatcial structure. This article gives little evidence that anyone actually recognizes Cox's eccesiastical authority, and even less that he heads a significant eccesiastical sturcture with multiple parishes and priests under him". Suggestions have been made about articles where he should be mentioned. The ordination of a celebrity in a hotel bedroom (after six weeks of theological studies) should perhaps be mentioned in the article about Lourdes. 46.15.246.73 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above anon IP has specifically followed me here from a dispute at 2011 Norway attacks - they have edited no other article but that and it's talk page, and this AfD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided support the argument that this is a person readers would be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. bd2412 T 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While there may be some points about notability that may be true, I don't personally believe this conforms with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Music1201 ^talk 00:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appears to be good at sometimes getting publicity, but there is zero evidence that he actually is a 'pastor to pastors' - actually a real, working bishop. If we let this guy get an article, every breakaway bishop would have to get one. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 07:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable. The only problem is that there is too few content in the article. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a crank, possibly a crackpot. But he is a crank who is widely covered in reliable sources. I revised lede to make his self-proclaimed status clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable, and there's significant coverage about him, even if it's not for great things. Bruriyah (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with the above two comments verbatim. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:37, 14 April 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 single year version of pageant community-deemed to be not notable. In depth consensus not obtained because article was redirected incorrectly to another year version of same pageant: but all other years are consensus to delete.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1971[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as I tagged this (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Elwood Murderer[edit]

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

Not notable and possibly a hoax Grahame (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing on Google, also inclined to think it's a hoax. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG in any case: Can't find a thing about it, even when I searched Google web and news for "Elwood Canal" "Mary Jackson" and "Port Phillip" "Mary Jackson" and "St Kilda" "Mary Jackson". The Elwood Canal is a real place in Elwood, Victoria, but Elwood appears to be densely-populated and next to the city of Melbourne, and if people were getting offed repeatedly in the last 17 years, I assume some news of it would have leaked into a Google crawl and stayed there, even if it's a habit in Australia for some media to erase articles after a time. So the article is either a hoax, or so bad that nobody else can figure out what events it's actually about, which qualifies as WP:CSD#A1. --Closeapple (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: either non-notable or non-existent: an extended search gives me nothing and no sources are given. Closest thing I could find is the murder of Mary Dean in 1931, which isn't close, and a recent murder in 2014. Could be a local urban legend, or could be entirely made up. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Must be a hoax - the most recent "murder" is supposed to have happened last year and there would surely be some mention of it online, somewhere - but there's nothing. Neiltonks (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, looks and smells like a hoax. Could probably be done under G3 for CSD Cannolis (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus not to have an article. Mergers are suggested, but without agreement about where to. This deletion is without prejudice to restoration for merging purposes should editors later agree about in which article to cover such topics. Sandstein 07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro Emotional Technique[edit]

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

Non specific method, apparently used primarily as part of chiropractic jargon. The isolated case studies used as references show very well why chiropractic is considered fringe. I have always strongly supported articles on notable fringe topics, but this is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found some links but nothing else convincing of better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some published articles are included as references, but there is not much that meets WP:HEALTHRS. These cited articles are not from mainstream journals and only extend to a few case-studies, pilot studies and comparison of a score of athletes. So, not an extensive body of evidence and I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drchriswilliams: But for me this raises the question, WP:HEALTHRS states that ideally references should come from "reputable medical journals" but chiropractic medicine is not going to be covered much there -- is it? And they do seem to have their own journals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there seems to be some notability in here. I would merge it into a parent article. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Upmerge It's inappropriate to divide fringe ideas into articles of a smaller unit than mainstream sources talk about them. We need enough sources to write a balanced article, and that means covering them at a level that allows proper, balanced discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge The passage that begins, "There are several schools of chiropractic adjustive techniques..." would seem to be the place for this. One concern though is that it's an application rather than an adjustive technique -- it's the same type of manipulation, or various types of adjustment -- but for a different desired effect? So maybe it would be mixing apples with oranges to merge it there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including more details than just merge. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reverted myself before, but there is enough content on the psychotherapeutic aspects that I think the Behavioural science delsort might as well be added, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing outside some fringe journals attests to this articles notability (even these look primary). If this is to be merged I would target Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques. There are currently a whole lot of merge proposals there for similar articles. Even if those fail then this is probably still the best place to mention it as I feel it is not notable enough for the main article (all the other techniques mentioned there have their own articles). A merge of its name and a short description is all that is needed and is all that is probably salvageable (first two sentences of the second lede paragraph). AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 21 April 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. Nominator withdrawn (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkoist Religion[edit]

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

Accidentally published work on a new article Jk nair (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definite keep. This is basically the Indian equivalent of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, well documented on Wikipedia. I also found multiple examples of full coverage on the movement in reliable sources likes Times of India, India Times and India Today. The article should stay with a "please help" banner asking for more references, but significant sources are definitely available. VanEman (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with VanEman; the subject of this article is definitely of good contemporary relevance, and hence, this article should, ideally, stay. However, what got published yesterday was accidental, and was a premature, "work-in-progress" version of the article. What was supposed to be published into a "user work-space" as a "draft" version, got accidentally published into the public Wikipedia space. A better, more detailed version is in the works, and is being reviewed by more competent individuals, and will be published as soon as this accidental article gets deleted. I am the author of the article that this delete request is for, and I am the author of the replacement article that will be published as soon as this wrong version is deleted. The only thing that is holding me from publishing the updated article is the deletion of this wrong version. Thanks for your understanding and patience - JK Nair. —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep The article has been overhauled, cleaned up, and now has the correct title "Dinkoism". Thanks to everyone that helped. The article that is being discussed for deletion here is "Dinkoist Religion". Currently it redirects to Dinkoism, which is the correct expected behavior. Now this article is a definite Keep. Jk nair (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy, the nominator is the sole significant author of the article so this falls under WP:G7. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep as the article has been overhauled. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7. Userspace version exits at User:Jk nair/Dinkan Religion and was updated more recently, so no need for userification. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definite keep. Numerous references, many followers. Article was overgrown with unsupported material which has been mostly chopped; references added. Numerous in-depth references here and here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable and sources. Perhaps requires trimming, but not deletion-worthy. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notably and well-sourced. Accidentally publishing to mainspace isn't a reason to delete, since pretty much every article on Wikipedia can be considered in-progress. clpo13_(talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason why -- during the middle of a deletion discussion -- with the article already improved -- WHY was the page moved to non-article-space?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article initially went through some confused states involving names, content, delete requests, redirects, etc. However, as of now, it has been improved and stabilized under the proper name "Dinkoism." The article that is being discussed here for deletion is "Dinkoist Religion". Currently it redirects to Dinkoism, which is the correct expected behavior. Hopefully, both of these stay, and will receive regular updates. I myself have many more details to be added to the current version. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for bearing with everyone who has contributed. Jk nair (talk) 04:18, 18 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDAM[edit]

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

The software discussed is not available as anything but a service. Thus even if the article were updated, it would be little more than advertising. GregRundlett (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I'm not able to find anything to establish notablilty or to let it pass WP:WEBCRIT. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N / WP:WEBCRIT, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if someone can find reliable, independent sources I will change my vote immediately. But it currently lacks notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this actually suggest any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 16 April 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian-American League[edit]

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

The lack of credible sourcing sort of dooms this one. I think we can quickly discard from consideration the directory entries, the League's own website and this piece of cruft, as well as the press release put out by a politician. What's left? Well, nothing much: passing mention in a not-terribly-independent source, and passing mention in a public service announcement. I think it's quite clear that the level of coverage does not justify an article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched and can't source it. Seems to be an ethnic (founded 2011) organization that never took off.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of my ancestors came from Romania so I WANTED to like this, but I found nothing of note. Bruriyah (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly merge. Simply lacks notability as a standalone article. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:09, 15 April 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 The Nexus Trilogy. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apex (Ramez Naam novel)[edit]

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

I've merged all information from Crux and Apex into the Nexus article, which I renamed to 'The Nexus Trilogy'. There is no need to have three separate articles (yet). There would be problems with overlap and missing information in all three articles. Momo Monitor (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see at this moment because my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the page where you merged the content. You can do this yourself and don't need an AfD to do that. Now that you've merged content, a redirect rather than a deletion is possibly required per WP:CWW. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable author. Book has been cited in reviews and articles. DaltonCastle (talk)
Keep or redirect: notable author and notable novel. Not sure if there's any advantage in having one article for all three novels over having it split up. --Fixuture (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nexus Trilogy. While the book is independently notable, as long as all relevant content is merged, there is no need to maintain three articles as long as the consolidated article does not get too long and needs a re-split per WP:SS. As noted above, this did not need an AfD and could have been done editorially. Sandstein 07:35, 21 April 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 The Nexus Trilogy. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crux (Ramez Naam novel)[edit]

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

I've merged all information from Crux and Apex into the Nexus article, which I renamed to 'The Nexus Trilogy'. There is no need to have three separate articles (yet). There would be problems with overlap and missing information in all three articles. Momo Monitor (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex (Ramez Naam novel). Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable, significant sources are available. VanEman (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author, and some of those are reliable sources it appears. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect: notable author and notable novel. Not sure if there's any advantage in having one article for all three novels over having it split up. --Fixuture (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nexus Trilogy. While the book is independently notable, as long as all relevant content is merged, there is no need to maintain three articles as long as the consolidated article does not get too long and needs a re-split per WP:SS. This did not need an AfD and could have been done editorially. Sandstein 07:35, 21 April 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. Rhododendrites has the strongest argument. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of coupon websites[edit]

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

I don't know if this should be speedily deleted or not. Basically, this article has no significance and may be promotional (though probably not). I don't think it deserves it's own article as it is not encyclopedic. — Music1201 ^talk 22:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove all red links. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as imaginably acceptable and convincing, this is an applicable search. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At the moment the entire article is based around the US .... if we were to globalize it it'd be impossible to keep up to date and we would never know what's vandalism and what isn't, Plus I'm not entirely convinced we need an article on what or who sells coupons .... Not every subject in the world needs an article (I'm sure there's an essay somewhere for ← that), Anyway Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The list is quite unencyclopedic. I'm afraid if the page is to keep, it will be vandalized by users adding their website to the list in an attempt for advertisement. I understand that is not a valid reason to delete an article, hence my "weak" vote. Meatsgains (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a list of "coupon websites". It is a hodge podge of cashback websites, loyalty programs, "deal" websites, group buying websites, online shopping rewards sites, coupon companies that have websites, and a whole lot of companies who make products and happen issue coupons for those products (e.g. Target, WalMart, and Pillsbury are listed). In other words it's list of websites and companies that happen to have websites, vaguely related to the concept of discounted consumer goods. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons (it's not viable as a list), with an additional reason that the page was created by an obvious sock of User:Artofwebdevelopment who first tried to advertise Qpoonz (deleted article), and when that failed due to the page being deleted as spam, vandalised by reposting it as a copy of Groupon with that name replaced by "Qpoonz" throughout. I believe that the list under discussion here was created as another attempt to get Qpoonz in some form into Wikipedia – note that it was the first one in the list before I (cheekily) removed it because it was a redlink: it was quickly replaced, of course. —SMALL JIM 22:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not an advertising website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruriyah (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus after multiple relisting. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pension Volkmann[edit]

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

No references for this article. The fact that the band was allowed to exist during communism is notable only if reliable sources comment on that interesting fact. Otherwise, there are many interesting but non-notable facts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are still finding nothing better, delete until better is available if ever. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the book search linked above finds "nothing better"? It finds a review in Eulenspiegel as well as coverage in quite a few books, although the extent of that coverage is unclear because in many cases Google Books only displays snippets. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are book and magazine sources, such as Eulenspiegel magazine, also found a page of excerpts of press coverage on their website linked in the article but could not get them translated due to url problems, perhaps someone else can manage to translate them, just passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - if you can provide better sourcing to illustrate notability then I will pull my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "better sourcing" do you mean better sourcing than is currently in the article or better sourcing than the sources that are mentioned above in this discussion? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that this band passes WP:MUSIC criterion 5 with two albums on the Amiga label, the monopoly label for popular music in East Germany. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; I believe a lot of the "did a search, found nothing" results here are based upon looking for sources in English, rather than German, which one would expect the majority of the coverage to be in. While I don't think that Amiga records released during the DDR era are really what WP:MUSIC #5 has in mind, I think there's enough coverage available in the German language (including on their website's press section) to think that there is something notable here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 22 April 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levon a[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK. According to Amazon, the book was only released on April 5th. Appears to have garnered no significant attention. No significant coverage anywhere. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this commentary about the book.http://www.teleread.com/jeff-radkes-levon-e-book-formatting-falls-short/ I think it clearly shows the book's uniqueness in this moment and why the article should be kept alive.

Also, the significance of Sheng Xue continues to be deleted from the internet using the 50 cent army and I think wiki should be more lenient in keeping good references of her place in our literature. — Loft64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - on the surface does not seem notable enough. But given the unique book, it might change very quickly. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book has been out for 12 days; no reviews in PW or Kirkus, which means it is not even on anyone's radar. Publisher Bascom Hill Publishers is not quite a self-publish outfit, but it says that it only accepts authors who show up with "details on how you plan to market it". The Teleread site is notably fringe and that particular article was taken from a blog post elsewhere. The only plausible reason for the article is promotion of a newly published book. Note that user Loft64 is an SPA on this article. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched, found No reviews. No pre-pub mentions in reliable, secondary sources. Nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 19 April 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claymation Courtyard[edit]

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

Non notable selfreleased album. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. VanEman (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. DarthVader (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Buckethead discography - I admit that my main drive to find sources and weigh in is because I hate to see AfD outcomes based only on insubstantial !votes. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I did not find enough. The only one to speak of is this one at Metal Archives, but otherwise there's not enough out there to satisfy WP:NALBUM. Pretty standard practice to redirect a non-notable album title to the artist (or discography) page, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable enough for standalone. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a piece of music. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:25, 21 April 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 Sources cannot be assumed, they must be specified. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snehapriya Roy[edit]

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

So called beauty queen featuring only in blogs and similar non-RS references. Article looks very good, thanks to the probable WP:SPA who has been creating similar articles on non-notable beauty pageants and their winners. Delete, fails WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing much in the way of secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no secondary sources, my searches turn up nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable enough. I'm sure sources can be found. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources cannot be alleged to exist, especially for a BLP, they must be demonstrated to exist. There are only six G-News hits, all of them fleeting mentions, and zero newspaper hits, a dire result for the gigantic Indian English-language press. None of the sources presented in the article are reliable. Beyond that, this "Miss Intercontinental" pageant is a minor one that only scrapes by on notability itself; we're not talking Miss Universe here. Ravenswing 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per Speedy Keep Criterion 2 as this nomination was unquestionably brought to disrupt. The nominator was indefinitely blocked today as a sockpuppet of a user blocked last month for disruptive behavior. Rebb ing 22:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

XHQC-FM[edit]

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

Not enough references Xx C00l G$Y x#^t@lk 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our standard for radio stations is that if they are licensed (and you can type in "XHQC" in the IFT Public Concessions Registry and get this station, so it is), they are notable. The references here are the concession registry for the station's ownership history and the IFT tables for technical parameters and current concessionaire. Raymie (t • c) 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie: I wasn't particularly familiar with the guidelines for notability of radio stations, so I had a look around and it seems that the RFC here determined that the "automatically notable if licenced" guideline doesn't apply outside of North America, and that other radio stations should be judged by WP:GNG. Should WP:BCASTOUTCOMES be considered consensus, it seems like there's some degree of contention over the issue? I'm honestly asking, I am not familiar with the topic.— crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crh23: Radio in Mexico is more like radio in the US and Canada than it is radio in other countries; there aren't a lot of strong networks, most stations are locally programmed, etc. The smaller number of stations per city is mostly due to outdated technical guidance which is being replaced soon. Raymie (t • c) 17:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information for many radio stations, particularly Canadian & Mexican stations, can be very limited or difficult to find. Some information is certainly better than none, and this article definitely provides valuable information which may not be available anywhere else. The IFT reference verifies some of the licensing information, and the article gives a good basic background.Rudy2alan 13:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Not enough references" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. That's a reason to add references, not to delete the article. If you think that such references cannot be found, that's another story and you (Xx Cool Guy7202 xX) will have to explain why you think that's the case. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs improved sourcing (tagged as such now), but keep per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Shuter[edit]

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

Noticeably unsourced article with only a few links and, the current ones simply show no better signs of satisfying the applicable notability. Searches found only a few mentions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly WP:PROMO article that my searches only reveal passing mentions for. As a sidenote, sourcing is terrible and the entire article would not likely survive even if there were sources to support notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page reads like a puff piece and subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly written and the guy doesn't sound too likable, but I found more sources on him like Fox News and The NY Daily News. I'd keep it with a banner asking for more references. VanEman (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit to address promotional content. The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "One Man's Great Gift: Not Fitting In". Yahoo!.
^ "Shuter likes his hot place at the 'Table'". NY Daily News. 30 December 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ "HDNet Keeps the Party Going and Extends 'Naughty But Nice with Rob Shuter'". Telecommunications Weekly. (subscription required)
^ "Aol Touts Success of New Video Series PopEater with Naughty But Nice Rob, Urlesque". Adweek. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "An Interview with Naughty But Nice Rob". The Huffington Post. 11 August 2011.

Keep - poor article quality does not necessarily merit deletion. Plenty of sources pointing to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Eeesh, WP:BEFORE, please. There are a great many news sources, and not merely quoting him, but about him. Obviously the article needed pruning of the many citation tag items that had been up for several years ... so I just did it. That took me all of 90 seconds. Ravenswing 06:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:PROMO still applies to this, but easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:40, 16 April 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Sangam[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided to establish notability. Almost one year old article. Fails: WP:N. Does only official website establishes notability? Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 04:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps as my searches found only a few links, at best I would suggest moving any necessary contents to Zee News if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with above vote, take the little content on this page and move to Zee News. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - lack of sources points to lack of notability. But if this is indeed a major subsidiary, sources should surface. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedade Brasileira de Céticos e Racionalistas[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:ORGIND. Only mentions online are either self-published by Sabbatini or in articles that he is interviewed (about something else). giso6150 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CLUB, small org with no significant coverage. Would this fall under WP:A11, I wonder, given that the page author is also the society's putative founder? —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't say so. A11's really for NFT deals, not for outfits determined to exist but where no assertion of notability is made. Ravenswing 05:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - seems like there should be sources on this pointing to notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who Run This?[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is likely best since this may not explicitly need to be redirected to the album itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No pun intended, but a 'notable song' has to clear a pretty high bar. If there's doubt, delete. Riventree (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait, Nicki Minaj was on a song... in 2004? Wow, she really was bitching about Roman for such a long time. At best redirect to Nicki Minaj as a non-notable song. editorEهեইдအ😎 09:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - not notable enough for standalone. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here that merits its own article particularly since the primary artist's article was also deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:51, 15 April 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sherine[edit]

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

Non-notable person. All the references have been removed by Mohammed Re7an. Too old for WP:BLPPROD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is noticeably troubled and there's also nothing for the applicable notability, not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is one of the most famous female living Egyptian singers. A few sources about her: Youm7 Filfan Alwafd Elfagr Russia Today Arabic AlJazeera Arabic Layalina Nogom Masreyya Website Veto newspaper AlBawaba website AlMogaz etc. Besides this, the article about her exists in 6 different Wikipedias. --Meno25 (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable Egyptian artist, the current poor state of the article is no reason to delete, but rather to tag for improvement. Greenman (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mention here, plus in-depth coverage here, a second one here, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets notability requirements. The lack of references isn't a reason to delete the article. There just have to be sufficient ones available, which is the case here. VanEman (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VanEman, the bold "delete" looks inconsistent with your stated views? AllyD (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article text has become a mess (machine-translation?) but the subject is described as "one of the Arab world’s most popular singers" in a bylined report here. That and the sources identified above by User:Meno25 indicate that an acceptable article on a notable subject can be developed, firstly by reinstating the necessary references which were deleted a month ago. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What had been a reasonable basic article has suffered recently from overwrites with text such as "magazine published an audio recording electronic Bell voice announces the artist him retreat from retirement". Some may feel WP:TNT is needed, but it is better treated as a matter for normal editing negotiation to preserve English-language article quality. I've opened this on User talk:Mohammed Re7an. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as searches confirm notability, it just needs work. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wage War[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National touring, an album released with several chart notations in Billboard Charts, first Japan tour coming up and first appearance at the whole 2016s Warped Tour between June and August. Keep. --217.252.156.82 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wage war was now announced for Rock am Ring and Rock im Park festivals in Germany, here. --Goroth (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found a few links, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #3 spot in US Heatseekers, #9 in US Hard Rock Albums, #28 in US Independent Albums and #43 in US Top Rock Albums Charts for their debut record, Blueprints, is enough to show notability. Since the release the album might have sold 5.000+ copies. The album was produced by Jeremy McKinnon and Andrew Wade of A Day to Remember. The band toured US, was announced for Download-Festival in the UK, the whole Warped Tour, and most recently Rock am Ring and Rock im Park in Germany. --79.226.103.209 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing the IPs above list as "enough to show notability" is enough to show notability. There is little independent general coverage, so the article must aim for WP:BAND and comes short: the charts are not enough to show inherent notability, since they did not chart on the national chart for the US, the tours did not receive "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources", etc. As a note, the band could qualify in the future, as Fearless Records might be viewed as "one of the more important indie labels", but they need two albums under the label to qualify under WP:BAND. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to be enough here to claim notability, but I am concerned about the potential presence of vote stocking. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... claim notability under what criterion? There's not enough coverage to meet the GNG; these references are fleeting mentions, or else in non-reliable sources. Sure, it's going on this tour, but just that simple fact is no longer enough to meet WP:BAND, even if it were a headliner and not just one of twenty other bands on said tour. A claim that their sole album might have sold 5,000 copies doesn't cut it; meeting NALBUM requires five hundred thousand sales (and, oh, evidence of the same). Charting on Billboard's fringe charts doesn't meet NALBUM either; they need to have charted on the Billboard 200, and there's no evidence of that either. A whole whopping lot of TOOSOON here. Ravenswing 05:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, delete it, trash it or do whatever you want to do with the article. I'm sick of it all. --79.226.113.8 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 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. If anyone thinks some of the content is worth merging into another article, please contact me or another administrator for a copy of the text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copper in energy-efficient motors[edit]

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

The article seems to me to fail under WP:NOTESSAY. If you scrap all the context material (most of which is adequately covered in Electric motor), it basically comes down to "copper is good because it makes less Joule effect". While the second part is true, it is WP:POV to sweep the cost considerations under the carpet, and I fail to see the notability of the subject.

Pinging Dcshank who reviewed this at WP:AFC. Tigraan (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Some of the article's content would benefit the Electric motor article via a selective merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that. Tigraan (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative and well-sourced article that delves into many aspects of motor technology. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

How is it "well-sourced"? There are plenty of sources, sure, but that is for statements like the proportion of alloys, the current norms, etc. Putting aside the "Copper Development Association" sources which can reasonably be assumed to be biased, the only source I see for notability is the first one (the IEA report). Tigraan (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this reads like a master's thesis, not an article on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTESSAY is right. Fair warning: I am generally in favor of deletion of 'boutique' pages until there's a very clear need for them. There is no clear need for (nor any clearly novel content within) this article.

Riventree (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is basically an essay puffed up with a few refs that do not demonstrate notability (they're on minor components of the material), and what substance there is, is better covered already at Electric motor. I doubt there's enough substance to be worth merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete redundant essay, wrong title: it is (besides other stuff) is baout copper in any electrical motors. But even in this case the subject is not notable: no sources specifically discuss exclusively "copper in motors". They may compare various metals, but this belongs to the corresponding articles about devices themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interst of fairness: the IEA report does discuss the topic ("copper versus alternatives for motors"). Actually, a part of the article used to be copyvio of it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real sources on this exact topic. Bruriyah (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - best answer would be to merge it into an appropriate article. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Pennacchia[edit]

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

Whole lot of stuff written by her in nn sources that do not meet RS, found nothing written about her. Fails GNG and the lower hurdle, NAUTHOR. John from Idegon (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I failed to find independent significant coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent coverage, not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that she meets any relevant notability guideline. I don't see any third-party sources discussing the subject. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. There appear to be absolutely no sources discussing the subject whatsoever. I certainly couldn't find any. 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

[1] "That Barbara Spectre Video". American Thinker.

[2] "Don’t Write Off European Jewry". The Jewish Week.

[3] "Recognizing Antisemitism Is the First Step to Fighting It". Algemeiner Journal.

[4] "Visions of Venice". The Jerusalem Report. Quote: "... Institute, a fascinating experiment in Jewish education created by Barbara Spectre, an American-Israeli, with funding from the Swedish government...the curriculum is pluralistic and eclectic goes without saying. Barbara Spectre - who ...". (subscription required)

[5] "A Smorgasbord of Empowerment". The Jerusalem Report. Quote: "Cofounded by Dr. Barbara Spectre, a pleasant, relaxed, 67-year- old American-born Conservative Jew who is a professional educator, and several ...". (subscription required)

[6] A Century of Commitment. p. 207. (subscription required)

[7] New Straits Times

[8] Philippine Daily Inquirer

[9] "Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (YEO)". Inc..

[10] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[11] Oh, to Be So Young, Ambitious and Really Really Rich. Los Angeles Times.

[12] Philippine Daily Inquirer

[13] Toledo Blade

[14] Startup Communities. John Wiley & Sons. pp. pt87–90.

[15] The Sleeping Giant. pp. pt180–. (subscription required).

[16] From Here to the Streets: 2012 Revised Edition. p. 205.

[17] "Entrepreneurs' Organization Celebrates 25th Year Anniversary". Anadolu Agency. (subscription required)

[18] "Strength in numbers". Inside Business. (subscription required)

[19] "Executive Founds Young Entrepreneurs Organization in South Florida". Miami Herald. (subscription required)

[20] Why SalesLoft's Second Wind Is Going Strong. Entrepreneur.

[21] SalesLoft decides to start over. Business Insider.

[22] Tom Noonan backs Atlanta enterprise software startup SalesLoft. Atlanta Business Chronicle.

[23] A startup literally shot money out of guns onto the streets of San Francisco during the Salesforce conference. Business Insider.

[24] This Startup Failed In Year One And Is Now Doing Over $6M In Sales Per Year. Forbes.

[25] Hacking Web Intelligence. p. 51.

[26] Product Management

[27] Translation and Localization Project Management

[28] Project Management ToolBox

[29] The Digital Guide To Software Development

[30] The Product Manager's Toolkit

[31] ttps://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/22-august/features/features/an-angry-voice-and-a-tear

[32] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3623138/Sacred-mysteries.html

[33] "One Man's Great Gift: Not Fitting In". Yahoo!.

[34] "Shuter likes his hot place at the 'Table'". NY Daily News. 30 December 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[35] "HDNet Keeps the Party Going and Extends 'Naughty But Nice with Rob Shuter'". Telecommunications Weekly. (subscription required)

[36] "Aol Touts Success of New Video Series PopEater with Naughty But Nice Rob, Urlesque". Adweek. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[37] "An Interview with Naughty But Nice Rob". The Huffington Post. 11 August 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]