< 20 August	22 August >

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 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Digimon locations[edit]

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

This article is an absolute mess. The way the locations are described makes it better suited to a fan-based Wikia. Also, only one source/reference is cited, plus there is no real world information to establish sufficient notability. I am not sure about a merge, as this list spans various alternate continuities of the franchise. Last but not least, notability is not inherited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one appears to be pure List cruft. It is terribly written and comes off as a fan site. Having it doesn't help out the Digimon article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would compare this page to the Ninja World but that one is in better shape and only lists actual notable concepts/places. This one is hard to navigate because it lists every single place such as you would find on a Wikia. For that reason, I'd say delete. —Kirt^Message 11:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fan written trivia about fictional locations with debatable importance even within its own universe. If a location is important to the series, it can be noted within plot summaries in the relevant places. This might have a place on wikia, but not here.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to they can move this to wikia where it should be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps there might be some case to cover the very high level information in the Digimon series/season articles, but this infodump would better be served in a Digimon fan Wikkia. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to beat a dead horse, but this is something for Wikia. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Fancruft. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. Arguably, there could be some mention in the main Digimon articles, but this is best left for Wikia and not Wikipedia. It's time to put this article out of its misery. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:35, 29 August 2015 (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 01:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AudioConexus[edit]

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

I found nothing to suggest better sourcing. notability and improvement with my most fruitful searches here, here, here, here and here. Pinging contributors @Grayfell, Jpbowen, and Trivialist: and also passing editors Jayron32 (who removed speedy) and Mean as custard (who removed promotional words). SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional fluff. Trivialist (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there are reliable, secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH, I couldn't find them. Grayfell (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not appear to exist.--Jayron 32 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the creator in the comments claims this company produced the "world's first wireless GPS tours in multiple languages". If true, this would lend credence to notability. Can anyone find a good reference? See 2008 Press Release. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't support the claim that it's the world's first. It says it's "the first GPS tours in the region to provide a rich and compelling history of the Nation’s Capital and the Ottawa River", which is so specific it's kinda funny. Also, is it "the world's first wireless GPS tours (in multiple languages)" or "the world's first wireless GPS tours in multiple languages"? If the former that might be a legitimate claim to notability with sources, if the later, I don't think that's especially significant. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources are presented to justify inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (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 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ohura[edit]

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

Dunno about the taipai times but the other sourcing looks inadequate. Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hike The Monicas - Any particular reason ? ... –Davey2010^Talk 18:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

because I'm tired of veteran Wikipedians deleting every article created by new Wikipedians. Hike The Monicas (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason so expect it to be totally ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article under consideration here was created by an IP editor in 2004. Like it or not, Wikipedia's mirad of rules and guidelines (including inclusion guidelines) have changed over time. Guy1890 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a single-purpose account voting "people are mean so keep this!" in a handful of AfDs. These "votes" will be completely ignored, so not even worth the time to refute them anymore. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable sources, just a pile of DVD reviews. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having allegedly "the largest breasts in Japanes porn" is not a good claim to notability, sources are mostly in-trade publications and primary pieces Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Largest breasts" is not a convincing assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PORNBIO Hasteur (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2015 (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 08:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mako Oda[edit]

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another model/porn actress, no claim of notability in the article Kraxler (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a resume dressed up as an article with no substantial claim of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Pornbio Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2015 (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 clear consensus to delete. Chillum 14:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name, Address, Phone number[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Evangeliman (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Local search (Internet)#Ranking factors. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would never have thought that this could be used as a Wikipedia article. Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^(contribs) 00:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this article is helpful at all. Seriously.
Delete, this is not serious. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:43, 23 August 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blasé (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. This song is not notable. It only charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay for only a week. --DaYsz5 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its "1 week" is this week, aka it's blowing up from radio adds. Not sure why you have a fetish to delete the article immediately when you know this is likely to be a hit in a month's time. BlaccCrab (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlaccCrab then give the link where is says that this song debuted on number 45 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay. I don't see it here [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.130.19.91 (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Billboard Biz and search: Ty Dolla $ign featuring Future. It's at the top of the results. #44 on airplay BlaccCrab (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The song definitely meets the citeria. I changed some things and now it looks OK. --Eurofan88 (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2015 (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/2015 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article is currently a stub, and just the bare bones, there's enough info out there upon searching to pass WP:NSONGS. Note to the nominator, per WP:BEFORE, you should have waited a while before nominating the article for deletion, it was only active for two hours after creation, before you nominated it. Azealia911 _talk 17:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to apss WP:MUSIC. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:23, 24 August 2015 (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 - Unless others wanted to comment, I suppose this is more acceptable now. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BackpackersXpress[edit]

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

I would've let this article pass by if it wasn't that there's not much aside from the current information and because it was never successful, this would be best mentioned elsewhere but this is an orphan; my most fruitful searches were this, this, this, this and this. Pinging author Ardfern for comment. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am tired of articles for minor proposals which come to nothing. Keep. Article appears to be well-sourced and therefore notability is established. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Back in the day" there existed the notion that airlines are intrinsically notable, and Ardfern created dozens, if not hundreds, of articles about airlines. Since then, via multiple AfDs, a consensus has emerged that airlines must satisfy WP:CORP as other companies must, and this doesn't. YSSYguy (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There's probably a case to keep this as a monument to what appears to have been a seriously bad business idea (leasing two 747s to fly backpackers around - what could possibly go wrong?), but WP:CORP isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a bit more on this company from Googling it. The online sourcing is on certainly on thin side, but as there are likely to be more resources available through newspaper databases and the like given the eccentricity/foolhardiness of the business idea I'm switching to ~~very weak keep~~ @SwisterTwister: @Shiftchange: @YSSYguy: @GeorgeGriffiths:, what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm between still delete as it seems better to mention somewhere else and weak keep as mentioned (the sources are nice although thin). SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to add quite a bit more after looking in the Factiva database, and think that WP:CORP is now met as the coverage was sustained and reasonably detailed over the life of the firm and it's received a bit of subsequent coverage, so I'm changing again to outright Keep Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the substantial coverage found by Nick-D (talk · contribs) who has done excellent work on the article. There is substantial coverage of the proposed airline in The Australian Financial Review, Travel Trade Gazette, Bloomberg Businessweek, and The Sydney Morning Herald. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:CORP) is clearly met. Cunard (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2015 (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. No doubt about it the article is in a shit state but notability is certainly there and to be fair the article's not that promotional, As for the talkpage crap - Any vandal can write crap on a talkpage doesn't necessarily mean it's true but anywho I've removed it, Anyway seems an obvious Keep here (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andra Day (Singer)[edit]

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

The talk page has this statement from the creator: "Andra Day is about to tour with Lenny Kravitz and we want to see her audience grow to new heights. Wikipedia is fundamental in this audience acquisition process"

This states explicitly that this is part of a PR campaign and is a blatant advert. Delete as such. Fiddle Faddle 19:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (was delete): this AfC draft submission was moved inappropriately by a COI editor with 300 edits (AFCHS requires a minumum of 500 edits). There is some coverage about her, but in any case this would need to be userified until an appropriate review is conducted. It should never have been moved to mainspace like thus. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. What is wrong with you people? Really! This is a perfectly reasonable, not particularly promotional who satisfies the musician SNG with a national tour supporting Lenny Kravitz, satisfies the GNG via coverage by Billboard, CBS, BET, NPR, and Rolling Stone, has several high=profile public appearances/national broadcasts, has a performance in a notable documentary, and has a major-label album set for release next week. Rejecting the recent draft at AFC was inappropriate; speedying an article with so many obvious claims of significance was abusive; and campaigning to delete the article because the author didn't comply with an entirely optional process is Wikibureaucracy and Wikilawyering that may not quite reach its nadir, but really isn't attractive. The author was certainly trying very hard to keep the text legitimate and nonpromotional: there's no link to the album's Amazon or iTunes page, no link to the buy-tickets-for-my-tour page, no self-congratulatory quotations from her own PR or look-at-me-ain't-I-something interviews. Hell, the creator didn't even quote the effusive praise from the NPR commentator (which really belongs in there, so I've added it). And rather than supplying the standard overglamourized, photoshopped to death publicity image, the infobox photo is a nice shot of the artist working in the studio. Even though this comes from the subject's own people (who haven't hidden their relationship), it's a better and more appropriate article than 90% of the articles written by enthusiastic fans about their favorite performers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is wrong with me is that I despise people using Wikipedia for promotion, probably self promotion. I don't care about the use/abuse of the AfC process. I do care about the blatant advertisement of this artist and misuse of WIklipedia to do so. Do, please, beware WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I despise" is not a policy- or guideline-based argument, You don't argue that the subject isn't notable, and you don't explain how this piece is a "blatant advertisement". COI edition is discouraged but not forbidden, and when such an editor writes a policy- and guideline- compliant article and discloses their connection to the subject, they don't deserve to be vilified like this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. For The Big Bad Wolfowitz Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close - This article should not have been listed here. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND without question. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SGS S.A.[edit]

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

This seems to be a fairly large company, but by Wikipedia standards "large" does not guarantee "notable". Firstly, the sources referenced in the article are: an annual list of result;, a promotional web page of another company (described in the article as one of sgs's competitors) not mentioning sgs at all; a court judgement in which sgs is mentioned because of dealings with the person who was the subject of that judgement; a dead link; two apparently different references which turn out to both be the same thing, namely a tribunal judgement in a case which sgs brought; a document on a personal web site. Secondly, a Google search for information about the company produces, on its first page: four pages on sgs's own websites; two pages on bloomberg, one at markets.ft.com, one at Google, and one at Reuters, all merely providing business statistics; the Wikipedia article. I have checked the next couple of pages of hits, and they are no better. (A PROD was removed by an IP editor who in another post has stated that he or she is working for sgs.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is indeed the largest company of this kind worldwide, and as could be expected, there is quite a bit of media coverage of it, conferring notability. Just off the top of Google News: Last week's article about an acquisition, calling SGS "the world's number one in inspection and certification" (Tribune de Genève), January's article about annual results (Le Temps), and an article from last November about a possible change of headquarters (Tribune). Sandstein 08:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can bury you under sources which make this company pass WP:CORPDEPTH; see SGS expands Corescan service in North America; SGS boosts UK food testing capabilities and five related articles; SGS gets Argentina approval for genetically modified crop field studies; Le Genevois SGS a vu son bénéfice nettement reculer; SGS: en hausse à Zurich, le groupe défend ses marges; how many do you want? I suggets you check your search engine again, it might work now, James. Kraxler (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2015 (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. Consensus is to keep per WP:SNOW. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Arras attack[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NNEWS. User created article immediately after event was reported. At best this is too soon. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created article following dead link on Jean-Hugues_Anglade Unibond (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Significant terrorist attack Tough sailor ouch (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think we should wait some time to determine if NOTNEWS applies. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should really wait several days before making a final decision about keeping this article or not. We don't know if it's a terrorist attack. More info and sources will arrive in the next days. --Deansfa (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a terrorist attack, plain and simple. A known suspect brings automatic weapons into a train and starts trying to kill people, stopped by U.S. troops. Only thing plainer would be a bomb. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's first edit was to this AfD, and most of their edits are to this article, this nomination, or related pages. Sandra: What difference does the nationality of the people who thwarted the attack make? AlexTiefling (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Wait, leaning keep. Allow time for details to come out. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- moving my "vote to KEEP - The perpetrator was known to the authorities. A Wikinotable person was involved. Likely changes to operation of high-speed trains in the Shengen area is being talked of. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Keep but far too soon for an AFD. ( Three US Marines take down active shooter on a train in France? I'm looking into my crystal ball and I can see little probability of this story failing WP:GNG.) If it's a deranged individual, it may not be notable, but if there is a terrorism link, it almost certainly will be retained. Either way, this debate is premature. Nom might want to withdraw, and revisit this after the dust has settled. Since neither I nor anyone else has an actual crystal ball, it is far too soon to gauge notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, deletion tags on the page about significan breaking news stories have the primary impact of making Wikipedia look weird, almost goofball, certainly not like a responsible source of information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should leave it up for a while until we know it's not significant. --Article editor (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's news. Wikipedia is not a news station. Articles like this add zero value over and above what is already available on 24 hour media across the world. What a complete waste of time copying out news articles. Encyclopedia can and should wait. --ℕ ℱ 22:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News sources now saying that the shooter was known to French security services. There is a routine way of treating incidents of this type, see 2015 Chattanooga shootings for the routine manner in which shooting incidents are routinely started as the news breaks, and kept. And this shooter is not dead. There will be a trial, ongoing coverage, coverage of probation proposal in a few years. This story won't fail notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to wait until notability is established. There's no time limits here. If anyone is desperate to know the details of this incident, they will be already well served by news media - why on earth is an encyclopedia trying to compete with that? --ℕ ℱ 22:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came to Wikipedia to read about it because I knew someone would have an article. The French government is saying it is a terrorist attack and it really is one, not just some government official talking about a wannabe terrorist buying some stuff from an undercover agent that has nothing to sell. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (keep for now) - I don't really like having current events articles this soon after the first reports, but since it's already here, we should let it be until things are more clear. One possible argument for keeping it for good is the involvement of a WP:Notable person within the wider incident. ansh 666 00:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparent failed terrorist attack. Significant international news coverage. Michael5046 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (as distinct from NNEWS which also applies). This is a run of the mill small scale terrorist attack with no fatalities. Even the most minor of such incidents tends to gain mountains of news coverage at least briefly, but that is not the only criteria per WP:EVENT. Most importantly this is very unlikely to have any lasting effects. It is also highly unlikely that news coverage will last more than a couple of days at the most. My guess is that by tomorrow it will have been dropped from the front page everywhere except in France. Not every terrorist incident is notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the type of thing that Wikinews was meant for. If it turns out this is expected to have a much larger impact at the world at large, we can recreate then, but run the mill incidents do not need articles. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, those saying that GNG is met, there are no secondary sources yet for the story; newspaper articles that are recounting the events are primary sources. There's no sources that show analysis and transformation of impact on the event to the world at large. So this fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete per Ad Orientem. Versus001 (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is a address for information about terrorist attacks --85.180.131.110 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is far too early to be AFDing an article on a recent event - the shooter's motivations are not yet fully known and the political ramifications in Europe are not fully known. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on shootings considered terrorist attacks. -- Callinus (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to other issues, please see this Reuters aritcle:
Since the January attacks in Paris there have been other incidents. In June, a suspected Islamist beheaded his boss and tried to blow up a U.S-owned industrial gas plant in the suburbs of Lyon. And in July, French officials said they had prevented an attack on a senior French military official by arresting four people whose leader had links to jailed jihadists... The Belgian government is considering taking extra security measures, a spokesman said.
There is encyclopedic interest in assessing the outcomes of the security response after the 2015 Île-de-France attacks in terms of their efficacy and cost. -- Callinus (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - too early for AfD. ´this as this point passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per Ansh666. This might be worth deleting later, but it's not so obviously open-and-shut that we should delete it while the story is developing and is the subject of an ITN nomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a case of when we should follow policy and not rush to delete news items. We don't know the lasting effect yet. What we do know is fairly monumental, that two guys probably prevented a mass shooting that would have killed dozens if not hundreds. The guy had at least 300 rounds and the people were fish in a barrel with nowhere to go. I think the two guys are going to be feted for quite awhile, and I would not be surprised if there was additional fallout such as some kind of metal detector or at least extra security installed for trains. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The people who resolved this attack were given medals and congratulated by world leaders. This is not an everyday crime by any means '''tAD''' (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite clearly meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep. The nomination was premature, and it is clear that this a very notable event as less than 30 seconds of effort shows it meets WP:GNG with ease. I would support a policy of speedily keeping all AfDs for potentially notable events nominated per WP:NOTNEWS (or similar rationales) within 12 hours of the event happening. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get an admin to snow close this one? Looks like nominator is not going to withdraw, and this will be a highly trafficked article. (Template looks terrible) —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is not an everyday crime, but a potential terrorist attack that was reported by worldwide medias.Christo jones (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is notable per WP:GNG and there are obvious alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. --Jenda H. (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Walsh[edit]

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

an editor of a not wikipedia notable monthly magazine, an alleged prominent figure in the socialist party. Close to zero search results and nothing independent of the subjects primary publications. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also unable to find any third-party sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per lack of reliable sourcing, and because does not appear to meet general notability guidelines or specific notability rules about policitians. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Gresham Cooke[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a WWII RAF pilot without indicating the person's notability. References appear to be only routine coverage. KDS4444^Talk 18:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I hope I'm in the right place here to make a comment, this pilot is a decorated Royal Air Force flying ace who is rated as a double ace due to the number of aircraft he shot down. He is mentioned in a number of books and websites due to his achievements and was decorated for these. R44 Researcher1944 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: G'day, I believe this one meets the requirements of the WP:GNG. As a flying ace, there is also likely to be more coverage than what is currently in the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable ace pilot, coverage in books as recently as 2012. Probably more coverage as stated above. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please excuse me returning, I wrote the article, I'm a newbie here only active about 2 weeks. I just received "a cup of tea" from an editor for a near identical article, yet this one is being nominated for deletion ?? Respectfully I find this confusing. Wikipedia has a section for flying aces - as such I believe that these rare airmen are considered notable, Cooke is an "ace" as defined by Wikipedia and Allied Air Forces (ie: 5 victories to achieve the status), as such I believe he belongs in there, the fact that he is actually a "double ace" who was an ace and then achieved 5 more kills in one mission suggests that he is in fact a notable ace. The "aces" section has a large number of German aces and US aces but relatively few of other nationalities and I believe it might help to offer a more balanced selection for anybody working on school projects or similar.user:Researcher1944 420:19, August 22, 2015‎
Keep: BLPs don't come much more notable than this - and extremely well sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject clearly seems to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so looks notable to me per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And I recommend that this matter be closed soon. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drissa Diarrassouba[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NFOOTY and GNG. Quis separabit? 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no professional appearances Spiderone 19:58, 27 August 2015 (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 08:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Contender: The Game of Political Debate[edit]

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

Apparently there is no CsD category for non-notable produsts. Like this. Promotional to boot.TheLongTone (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a new card game and, based on its successful crowd funded campaign so far, it will be published. The contents of the article do not strike me as blatant advertising just informational. Its starting to make the rounds on blogs that follow new and notable crowd funded projects. [Example 1] [Example 2] [Example 3] I would propose keeping it for at least a month and see if gathers any press. A single news story on this game would make any discussion of deletion of this article mute. Given the political climate right now the odds of that are pretty good. This article doesn't directly violate any listed deletion conditions that I could read so I believe deletion is premature. A similar game Cards_Against_Humanity that also started with a kickstarter campaign had an article when it started its campaign as well Link to 2010 December version of Cards Against Humanity Article --Stillatwork (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)— Stillatwork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are admittedly weak but seem to pass WP:GNG. However, the article is heavily POV and needs a through clean-up. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Not sure if I get to vote, but I am continuing to gather sources as coverage continues to pickup, I knew that it was early on and a little weak but did think as [User:Non-dropframe]] already said that it looks to pass WP:GNG, as it looked that Cards Against Humanity passed that point as pointed out by User:Stillatwork. I thought I had kept it NPOV but I will work to try and improve the POV which it looks like Cards Against Humanity also suffers, I am new and trying to follow all the polices and rules but just want to try and give back to the community by adding content after consuming so much great content WP:IAR. --BS4Free (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) User:BS4Free is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.— BS4Free (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nonsense. Ther are no real sources, merely the result of PR. Is anybody actually buying or playing this game.TheLongTone (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) - considering the current lack of coverage in reliable sources and the article's blatant promotional tone throughout. Other similarly flawed articles should be cleaned up too, but are irrelevant for this discussion - see WP:Other stuff exists. If the game gets some independent coverage in a few months, I suggest to create a new neutral non-promotional draft version and to ask for an AfC review. The entire article needs to be rewritten anyway to meet WP:NPOV, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references appear to be effectively press releases, which are not reliable sources. The fact that two out of three entities above !voting to keep are SPAs under sockpuppetry investigation further casts doubt.--Rpclod (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or send to Drafts. While I agree that this game could be worthy of inclusion, I note that there are many independent card games out there that could become worthy. I think putting this into Drafts for 6 months or a year might be worthwhile until the product actually ships and someone like BoardGameGeek reviews it and provides a reasonably outside view. Disclosure: I have backed this project Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Geller, Eric (2015-08-06). "The Contender is like Cards Against Humanity for political debates". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2015-08-29. Retrieved 2015-08-29.
  The source provides a detailed review of the game and why it is successful:
  The deck looks beautifully designed, the sample cards shown in promotional imagery promise hours of uproarious fun, and the timing—released right before the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 election—couldn't have been better. Perhaps that's why The Contender soared past its $15,000 Kickstarter goal and is currently sitting at more than $35,000 with 24 days of fundraising remaining.
  It provides a detailed description of the game's history:
  The Contender, created by John Teasdale and Justin Robert Young and designed by Meg Paradise and Faun Chapin of Guts & Glory, follows the same basic premise as CAH. Everyone gets a set of cards and picks one to pair with each round's prompt card. But unlike Cards Against Humanity, which asks players to construct the funniest response to a prompt, The Contender asks you to construct the best or funniest argument as part of a series of debate rounds.
2. Budds, Diana (2015-08-05). "Think You're An Ace Arguer? Test Your Chops In This Political Card Game". Co.Design. Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2015-08-29. Retrieved 2015-08-29.
  This article provides a detailed description of the game:
  The game is structured so that one player acts as a moderator and the others are all candidates on a panel. The moderator deals five argument cards to each candidate then throws down a topic card, like gun control, corporate handouts, terrorism, education. The candidates then respond, using the argument cards the moderator dealt. The strategy comes with trying to form the strongest response. The twist is that the argument cards are snarky summaries of actual statements from smattering of presidential hopefuls like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Ross Perot, among others. They're categorized into facts, distractions, and attacks—strategies good debaters keep in their back pocket.
3. Lakshmin, Deepa (2015-08-11). "Think You Should Be President? Test Your Skills With These Cards". MTV. Archived from the original on 2015-08-29. Retrieved 2015-08-29.
  This article provides detailed coverage about the game's history and fundraising history:
  Creators Justin Robert Young and John Teasdale explain in their promotional video that you don’t need to know anything about elections in order to participate. The goal of the game is to win the debate, not to outsmart people with actual government knowledge.
  Young and Teasdale, along with designers Meg Paradise and Faun Chapin, asked the crowdfunding site for $15,000 to turn The Contender into the real deal. To say they shattered their goal is an understatement. Over 1,000 backers have donated nearly $50,0000 so far.
The "delete" editors' assertions that "The references appear to be effectively press releases", that the game lacks "independent coverage", and that there is currently no "reasonably outside view" are unsupported. None of these sources are press releases. All of these sources come from reputable publications: The Daily Dot, Co.Design (published by Fast Company), and MTV.
These sources provided detailed information about the game's history, description, and fundraising history. The sources review the game and explain why the fundraising efforts have been successful in "soar[ing] past its $15,000 Kickstarter goal".
Per Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems, the article's deficiencies are not valid reasons for deletion.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Contender: The Game of Political Debate to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Constantino[edit]

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

Searching this person's name online - in combination with his supposed profession (actor), his supposed role in The Life-Challengers, etc. - I couldn't find anything that backs up anything that is written in this article which lacks any references. What's more, the external link provided (to his supposed official website) only leads to a non-existing domain, indicating this is nothing but a hoax article. -- Lancini87 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is part of a small walled garden of articles for purported children's game show The Life-Challengers. Simply put, there's no evidence anywhere that this show ever existed in any form. All three articles involved – this one, The Life-Challengers, and List of The Life-Challengers episodes – are seeming fabrications. The deleting administrator should also purge the two redirects: List of The Life-Challengers characters and List of The Life-Challengers territories, as well as the two "screenshots": File:The Life-Challengers characters.png (an obvious MS Paint creation) and File:The Life-Challengers logo.png (a similarly obvious MS Paint creation, and one that even selected the wrong CITV logo for the time period this was supposed to have existed!), and consider preventative action regarding the editor responsible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of all, including The Life-Challengers and List of The Life-Challengers episodes. I searched and found nothing as well.--Rpclod (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as I found absolutely nothing to suggest confirmation, notability (much less) and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. All three connected articles are about as blatant as it gets in the hoax category. That means no degree for the subject at the age of 10, no "children's game show" where a Rebecca Lowe-voiced satellite navigation system "responds the children how far does it get," and, worst of all, no CableACE Awards for Best Excellence for an actor from "Petersburg, Zenak or Michigan." Calamondin12 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2015 (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. I've salted the page to prevent recreation, although if this is a sockpuppet of that specific individual, this may not stop them so I'd recommend that you keep an eye out for this under different titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Haunting in Cawdor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of an article about an upcoming film. It was nominated for AfD, received one delete !vote (mine), and was then speedy-deleted as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". The creator of this latest version has also been blocked. But leaving aside the status of the creator, the film has no independent coverage that I could find. According to IMDb it is slotted for a 9 October 2015 UK release, so maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at present it is not notable. Arxiloxos (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuliao[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 14:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sander.v.Ginkel, you nominated the page for deletion using PROD, then AFD, then removed the AFD template that linked here, leaving only the PROD template. Can you explain whether you have withdrawn this nomination or something? Everymorning (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nomination oddities aside, this seems to qualify for WP:CSD A7. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete, per above. This is more of a myspace page than a Wiki article. --Cagepanes (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP based only on self published source, WP:BLPSELFPUB. --Djembayz (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 28 August 2015 (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 I (soundtrack). No consensus to keep and redirects are cheap. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mersalaayitten[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG and WP:GNG Chamith (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Chamith (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Strong delete Unfortunately, an infobox only does not fall under CSD A3, though I believe it should. Since it does not qualify, than delete in the strongest possible terms for failure to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. And even if it DID satisfy those criteria, and it does not, delete for just being a ****ing infobox. If somebody wants it kept, write a ****ing proper article with text then. Safiel (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I (soundtrack), the article on the movie soundtrack from which it is drawn. It's possible the song could pass notability test, but there is no point, with so little content. Even if built out a bit more, readers would likely be better served with content as a section within the soundtrack article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic Universal Records[edit]

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

Non-notable label, created by COI account primarily to promote a non-notable artist, the claims for whom are a hoax. As an IP, I requested speedy deletion for King Tiger (Award Winning Recording Artist), (formerly King Tiger (Rapper, Actor & Entrepreneur)), and am now signing in to open AfD for the same reason. See also related issues at Bermúdez (rum). ‎JNW (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references mention the subject at all and none are authoritative.--Rpclod (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Note: I have requested a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whiskyrum1852 for the involved accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG with no secondary sources. --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2015 (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 08:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Osbun[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Google News search reveals zero results. Based on comments to date at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slycat21, I believe this may also be a COI or even WP:AUTOBIO article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the fact that he's uploading uploading unit photography from a film shoot, quite possibly of himself, the COI and possible autobio connection is clear, regardless of whether he chooses to declare it or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI and Autobio are not relevant in this AfD discussion. STSC (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are relevant. Per Wikipedia:Autobiography: "Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."--Rpclod (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an autobiography as it stands. STSC (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The source: www.monarex.com given by the article is good enough to support its notability. STSC (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single independent reliable source in that link that offers significant coverage of Osbun. The Cannes market supplement is paid advertorial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources from Global Times, Business of Film and others.

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - WP:BIO

STSC (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- Keep - Changing my !vote per WP:BIO@WP:CREATIVE after finding multiple references in Chinese and Australian media to Osbun and his film, "The Truth" some of which are now sourced in the Wiki article. At least two of these sources specifically mention or interview Osbun, producer of the film. He has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work" which has been the subject of "Multiple independent articles or reviews." His documentary may not be significant or well-known in the U.S., but it certainly seems to be in China. ABF99 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC) This is obviously an accomplished individual, but there are no references here to support notability as per Wikipedia guidelines, and I couldn't find any reliable sources about him online that were not promotional.)ABF99 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. STSC (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO@WP:CREATIVE. Article appears to consist, in large part, of a copy of the subject's profile & bio at IMDB; significant WP:COPYVIO issues. Comment - I am not sure that it is appropriate for this discussion to be listed at list of China-related deletion discussions; this article is a biography of an American film-maker. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for his documentary films on China-related issues. STSC (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi STSC, I would humbly suggest that this discussion will determine if the article subject is WP:NOTABLE. While the subject may have worked on films on China-related issues, that does not mean that their biography is China-related. It is clearly scope creep, and might reasonably be construed as WP:CANVASSing. I respectfully invite you to self-revert. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat - He is notable for his films about subjects on China; therefore it is included in China-related deletion discussion. STSC (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur wholeheartedly that articles about those films would be reasonably considered to be China-related. I cannot concur that this is also true of the biographical article about the director. His work is China-related; he is not. It may, however, be best to agree to disagree on this point. Editors asserting WP:Notability of the article subject should show that it meets the requirements at WP:BIO & WP:CREATIVE. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding any copyright issue in parts of the article, as an editor you should improve it, not just delete the whole article. STSC (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete !vote is based on an absence of WP:Notability - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this debate is not a vote. STSC (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Per WP:!VOTE, this discussion should be an act of consensus building. Use of the term of art !vote refers directly to this principle. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Further research shows his documentary work does indeed relate to China, and has received a fair amount of coverage in Chinese media as noted here and here as well as Australia. Osbun himself is in two of these articles, the others discuss only the director Chris D Nebe. ,STSC can you point us to any more sources like these in Chinese media that specifically mention Osbun? The documentary mentioned does appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Not sure if these mentions/interviews of Osbun establish his notability, but willing to consider it. ABF99 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage from independent sources of Business of Film, Global Times, and That's has already demonstrated Osbun's notability per WP:BASIC. STSC (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Business of Film Cannes market supplement article is paid advertorial, as I stated above. Unfortunately, I cannot find a reliable source that states that, so as to prove it. As for the other articles listed on Monarex website, coverage of their slate of China-related works doesn't mean Osbun is independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osbun is notable in his field as a filmmaker and received significant coverage in film-related contents. I don't think Wikipedia would expect him to be "independently notable" like a celebrity. STSC (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed require the subjects of biographical articles to be independently notable, per WP:BIO, which I encourage you to read, if you haven't done so. Simply having worked on films in some capacity as an employee of Nebe and Monarex is not enough warrant an article, in and of itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That's all we are concerned. STSC (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it remains my view that none of the sources you've cited meets that requirement, for the reasons I've already explained above. Nebe is no doubt notable -- though I daresay his role as a documentarian and/or propagandist for the Chinese regime would become a matter of some contention -- but Osbun is not, in my view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while searches show some mention of this individual, not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, clearly doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed something in your search; some of the sources as in the article are more than just "mention". STSC (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject has engaged in activities typical of his profession, but nothing that meets WP:CREATIVE criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osbun's has created well-known feature-length documentary films in China, and particularly Diaoyu Islands: The Truth has won significant critical attention as shown from tOhe sources. These meet the additional criteria for creative professionals. STSC (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to badger every delete !vote? He didn't "create" the film, Nebe did. Osbun had an utterly unremarkable career in reality television work before being hired by Nebe as a staff producer with his company, Monarex. He is not an independently notable producer. If you want to create an article about Nebe, you're welcome to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osbun now is a business partner of Nebe, and he was the producer of Diaoyu Islands: The Truth and many other films according to the source: IMDbPro. STSC (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the aforementioned arguments. Osbun has been associated with perhaps notable films, but that doesn't necessarily make him notable. Fame is not necessarily transitive. As stated above, the COI-related editing is also worrying. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2015 (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 substantially rewritten, strong post-rewrite consensus to keep. There was one objection made after the rewrite started, which stated "Can't find any RS which show notability." As of a few minutes ago, the totality of the reliable sources show significant coverage. (non-admin closure). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unity (asylum seekers organisation)[edit]

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

Absolutely no evidence of notability offered - not even evidence that it exists. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been deleted by speedyA7, in my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG Your opinion on Speedy A7 is manifestly wrong, then. A7 cannot be used where an article has a claim to notability - very evident from the number of sources on the page which have been found AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantially improved -- Asylum (and illegal immigration) is a hot topic in UK. According to the UK government, a large proportion of those seeking asylum do not qualify under the appropriate convention. I suspect that this is a very small organisation, with an agenda to undermine UK immigration control, rather than to provide immigrants with appropriate advice and support. BLP articles are now required to provide sources. I think this should also apply to articles on organisations. This one has not a single source, not even a link to the organisation's website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterkingiron, this discussion is not exactly the place for your WP:SOAPBOX anti-immigration rhetoric namely "I suspect that this is a very small organisation, with an agenda to undermine UK immigration control" which could be considered offensive or damaging by the organisation. For the record, the UK has some of the strongest anti-immigration laws in the world, which it seems likely this organisation can "undermine" AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Can't find any RS which show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect, User:onel5969, you must not have looked very hard. The Guardian, The Independent, STV, The Scotsman etc are generally considered reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have given the article a major rewrite. I have identified multiple reliable sources that cover the activities of this organisation and made use of them as references. Most of these sources are articles written by journalists for national newspapers. I feel that this media coverage clearly establishes the notability of this small organisation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the substantial rewrite I am giving some time for reconsideration. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't see the previous version, but the rewrite is well referenced and establishes notability. Dalliance (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also didn't see the previous version, but the rewrite is well referenced with high quality sources going back to 2006 and establishes notability. Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per my previous post. Dalliance (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - At current state with many sources seems pretty clear to me that it meets WP:GNG. Very disappointing that the nom User:RHaworth seems to have failed to follow the steps at WP:BEFORE, given the large number of independent, reliable sources that have been found. AusLondonder (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is really shameful that what is now quite a reasonable article was nearly deleted through utter failure to conduct basic checks for sources. An article being poor does not justify its deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Centre is only mentioned in many of them. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 26 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Chopping[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with IMDb and my searches summarizing it, nothing at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary and this is probably for someone else. There's not exactly a good move target aside from one of his last shows and there's nothing to suggest improvement. I could've PROD this but I wanted users to comment in case I missed something. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article and references do not support WP:NACTOR notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable actor; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)c[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not address the problems identified in the "delete" opinions. Sandstein 08:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alad Umug Lama[edit]

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

I'm nominating this because my searches found nothing good at all with only actually visible book repeating the Encyclopedia of Gods and mostly Wiki mirrors (books and browser). There's no free view for this latter book although it seems to exist. Aside from that, there's nothing to suggest improvement or better notability and further searches found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (changed back from Keep) fails WP:V, searches indicate that the subject is not mentioned in the reference, and web searches don't yield a single mention anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. Kraxler (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking again the web, I see now that the entry is actually called "Alad Udug Lama" (spelled with d, not m, thus not yielding any results with the wrong spelling) see Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses by Michael Jordan (revised edition of the previously called Encyclopedia of Gods). I can't see the entry, only a snippet view. Article should be moved to the correct spelling, and then the content should be revised. Alad, Udug and Lama seem to be different entities, according to other scholarly sources. Kraxler (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have moved the article to Alad Udug Lama. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept a listing in E of Gods as notability, even if there is nothing else. The book is published by the major reference publisher Facts of File, and is in over 1200 libraries, proving it a standard encycopedia on the subject. We have always accepted coverage in other encyclopedias as notability., even as the only source. ß DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jordan's work is widely available, but it's still junk scholarship, and the litany of little stubs we have cited solely to it is a longstanding embarrassment for the project's coverage of mythology. Its use has been a pet peeve of mine for some time now. For the record, the entry for this "deity" is: "Collective name of guardian deities. Mesopotamian (Sumerian and Bablyonian-Akkadian). Vague spirits who accompany major deities and dispense good fortune." But, as always, Jordan offers no sources in support of this claim. And while all three of these words legitimately referring to various forms of mythical, spiritual, or divine entities, there's no evidence whatsoever that they can be put together in this way to mean what he implies. Indeed, both major Sumerian databases, the ETCSL and the PSD, only list a handful of recorded uses of Agad. The closest any of them get to this sequence is ur gal ^dalad₂ ^dlamma mu-ne-en-šum₂ from Samsu-iluna and Inana (Samsu-iluna A). The provisional translation of that line, "[Inana] gave [the people] great beasts, and male and female protective deities...", is a long, long way from supporting Jordan's claims that "Alad Udug Lama" is a specific proper noun representing a collective group of fortune-dispensing spirits. But if you don't like that argument, given that this stub essentially reproduces his text in its entirety, it's also a copyvio. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kraxler and DGG: Making the previous participants aware, since this has been running for awhile, and I'd hate to see this need another relist or N/C close.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually discovered already that these three seem to be different entities, there were some scholarly sources with snippet views which let me gather as much. Thanks for giving a learned opinion on Jordan. Kraxler (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2015 (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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esperança (non-profit)[edit]

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

I accepted this from AfC in order to get a community judgment on whether it's notable. Personally, I doubt it--this 11-person group would obviously like to become notable, but its activities are very minor. I think the press amounts to PR, but others may judge differently. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has sources that contain significant coverage, not just PR, and coverage spans multiple decades. Vrac (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - I saw this one earlier but wanted to wait until someone else commented and I think this has good enough coverage to be notable. I haven't searched for additional sources yet but this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to note that I added a couple of additional sources from USAID and the Child Survival Collaborations and Resources Group.Rtapscott (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -It is clear that this meets the notably requirements of Wikipedia. The sources, as noted above, come from a number of publications and span multiple decades. The additional documents that were added last week strengthen the article. Rtapscott (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC) User talk:Rtapscott is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any significant coverage of the organization online. It does not appear to meet WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of the organization's size, there are reliable sources that cover it in depth. One is from the L.A. Times and the another I found was from the Non-profit Journal. I stopped my search there. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2015 (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 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moyukh Chowdhury[edit]

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

Fails to meet the guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article as it stands seems to contain one acceptable source (a Bangladeshi newspaper), and certainly does not adequately demonstrate notability as it stands. However, we should consider WP:BIAS: authors writing in languages other than English often do not have much coverage in English, even when sources in their native language (which are standardly regarded as acceptable here) uncontestably establish notability. In this case, there is what looks like a substantial and well-referenced article on Bengali Wikipedia - as I have had to use Google Translate to judge this, I can't be certain that I am right about this, but if I am, then we should be using that article's sources to improve this one rather than deleting it. PWilkinson (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched online and found no authoritative sources supporting notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as there appears to be coverage from only one reliable source, but even that may not be true, as the page does not load for me, and it appears that the Suprobhat Bangladesh website may be down. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Suprobhat Bangladesh article is at the Wayback Machine, and it seems to be properly cited. At the moment, I think there's three reliable sources that mention him, but I don't know really know what to do beyond that to improve the article given the language barrier. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - In terms of Bengali language sources, it looks to me that he's been referred to as a notable poet several times. I can't be sure since I'm just looking at Google-based translations, but I feel inclined to keep the article. In this news site, his recently published book is praised while he's described as having many fans that have waited decade after decade to see his take on the socio-political trends going on (again, I'm just looking at a jumbled translation, so I'm not positive). This site, which I think is news related, have him mentioned as one of the most famous recent poets in that language (again, same situation). I guess I lean to keeping the article in the hope that someone that speaks both languages can improve things. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by and the analysis of CoffeeWithMarkets (talk · contribs). The coverage in Suprobhat Bangladesh, Banglamail24, and Alokitobangla is enough to establish notability. That the sources describe him as having many fans and being one of the most famous poets in the language also strongly indicate that he is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOQUORUM Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrap[edit]

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

This cloud-based application does not meet WP:GNG, verified after several source searches. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. Prod from July 10 was declined and sources were added, but most are not reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dead links, blogs, and press releases do not comprise reliable sources. Nothing indicates that this app is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ApolloMD[edit]

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

My searches found no hopes of improvement and better sources and notability, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not find extensive coverage either. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain This is the sort of b to b company there will be little conventional coverage of, and we have to figure out some other way of handling, like the largest firm in its field. I discount the E&Y awards: here are 265 E of the Year Awards in different categories. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search online does not support notability. The article itself provides no independent reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Zakeri[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. None of the books/papers authored by him has 10+ citations. Solomon 7968 16:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails under WP:GNG, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC) - blocked sock. GermanJoe (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google scholar finds 88 publications not by Zakeri that mention his generalized fractions. That, to me, seems enough for the "has pioneered or developed a significant new concept" clause of WP:PROF#C1. In addition, the two conferences in his honor show that his contributions have been recognized by his peers. He appears to be a significant figure in Iranian mathematics, but also someone whose contributions have had worldwide impact. The claim of the nominator that he has no publications with even two-digit citations is false: Google scholar lists citation counts of 68 for "Modules of generalized fractions", 42 for "Local cohomology and modules of generalized fractions", 34 for "Co-Cohen-Macaulay modules and modules of generalized fractions", etc. These are still not large numbers but pure mathematics can be a very low-citation field, so I wouldn't infer very much from them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you click at the scholar link above, it gives the citations as 15, 7, 6, 5 etc. Somehow I even missed the 15 one. He doesn't have a GS Profile so I don't know how you get hold of the 68, 42, 34 papers. But I can confirm they do show up, when I search for them manually. Can you elaborate how you managed to find the papers? Thanks. Solomon7968 13:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searched Google scholar for author:h-zakeri and then skipped the ones that were obviously not his. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep— He is known university professor in Iran. keeping better than removing--Samək^Talk 14:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sufficient cumulative impact even if no individual paper was a standout. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy reform[edit]

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

This does not need to be its own page separate page from that of the Global Scenario Group or the Great Transition. It offers little in the ways of actual content that cannot be found and better contextualized on one of the other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC25 (talk • contribs)

Delete: I agree that this does not need to be its own article. This information should be included in articles for sustainability, policy, the Global Scenario Group, or the Great Transition. At the very least, I think we would need to see some reliable secondary sources showing that this concept is notable on its own. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template and never listed in a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 16:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Reform, which needs additional content/citations anyway. Policy reform is one of the main usages I can think of for reform (outside of reform schools, I suppose) and I see no reason for it to be a separate article from reform. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while the content may be interesting for a college paper, WP is not a collection of essays and personal opinions.--Rpclod (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does indeed read like a student paper, or a draft of a speech. WP:FORUM. The inline external links go to the Great Transition external website.— Maile (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. GregJackP Boomer! 04:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mareco Broadcasting Network. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWBM-TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:NME. I previously nominated this article for deletion but withdrew the nomination due to the lack of consensus. theenjay 36 13:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. theenjay 36 13:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. theenjay 36 13:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 121.54.54.239 (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, do you have any two cents for this discussion? theenjay 36 23:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Theenjay36: Why did you ping me, of all editors? Since I did not participate in the original discussion. Anyway, in the original discussion, someone suggested a merge to its parent organization (which apparently is still active), so I'll go with that. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a formerly active licensed station, this is notable per WP:NTEMP. But I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that a merge to the parent company, Mareco Broadcasting Network, is acceptable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mareco Broadcasting Network as a functional alternative to deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 29 August 2015 (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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As a non-parliamentary party which has never run candidates at an election, it fails notability. The article has weak independent sourcing as all it has done really is start - most refs are to its own site. The AEC register suggests its headquarters are a residential flat in the outer suburbs. Its first nomination was inconclusive due to a lack of feedback, with several people suggesting userfication, which I would support in the event that it does become more notable at some stage in the future. Orderinchaos 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Orderinchaos 12:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a pingathon! @Frickeg: @Carrite: @The Drover's Wife: @Davewild: @IgnorantArmies: @Coffee: @Randykitty: - that would be everyone who participated in the last discussion. I nominated last time, and this time I'm going to declare my don't give a fuckism about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same rationale as last time. We can't adequately cover Australian elections without covering our kind-of unique system of microparties and the role they play through preferential voting. Two parties with exactly this level of notability got people elected in 2013 (even though one result was overturned by the courts), and the preferences of many more were crucial in which people from larger parties got elected. There's just no way you can adequately explain this without having articles on all the bit players. I will support deletion of microparties if there is just nothing to write an article on, but that is not the case here. If we start deleting parties like this, readers will invariably come looking for information about them when they matter and make even more news at the next election, and we'll have actively stopped them from finding what they were looking for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Yeah, I'm going this way again. I still think our rationale needs to be that inherent notability for parties derives from registration and contesting an election (although parties can of course be notable without meeting this benchmark). The recent Danig Party AfD, as well as the deregistration of another never-ran by the AEC, further convinces me that this is the way to go. As for the sources, I see one source on a minor spat between two micro-parties, and a minor mention of same in another much longer piece, which is not enough for WP:GNG in my view. In the event they make further news leading up to the election, and if and when candidates are announced and confirmed, we can reconsider. It may be appropriate to userfy the article in the meantime. Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am slowly coming around to this after recent examples: I think it's a stance that would have served us really badly in the 2013 election, but there have been a spate of recent examples - Danig and Coke In The Bubblers as you said, and The 23 Million that we discussed earlier, that just draw a really long bow for notability in spite of having been registered. I don't think there should be a high bar for notability in cases like this and I feel like if this isn't made out here it's at least close to it, but the more I think about it the more I'm on board with no inherent notability for registered parties yet to contest an election. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, I don't actually think this stance would have hurt us much in 2013, because by running candidates the parties would have met the requirements. If I recall correctly, such was the flood of new parties that there were actually a few we didn't even have articles on until after the election. Frickeg (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My view is unchanged: I favor the lowest possible bar to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. If you wanna file this under an argument based on the site policy of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense), fine, but this is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Counting articles towards fulfillment of GNG, THIS article in the Australian Guardian absolutely counts as one... Carrite (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It's a registered party. Perhaps the Mutual Party article should be linked with this one? Meticulo (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mutual Party was originally the Bank Reform Party, and then after the rename became a front for conservative ex-Liberal Anthony Fels - I'm not sure what they have to do with these people? [edit] The mob Fels aligned with aren't the same people as these ones. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Mutual Party was apparently absorbed by the Australian Progressive Party in March. I don't think the pages should be merged, but perhaps some disambiguation might be required? The Australian Progressives and the Australian Progressive Party seem to be rivals. Meticulo (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the policy arguments raised by Carrite and The Drover's Wife, especially given the existence here of actual coverage in The Guardian. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that AEC registration plus Guardian coverage establishes notability. De Guerre (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2015 (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. Don't usually close on 2 but I'm 95% sure the next relist would only result in another keep so no point dragging it on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Schneider[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. unsourced BLP The Banner talk 06:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ My news sweeps did not turn up WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep as per Dravecky weigh-in below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with coverage in third-party reliable sources ([3], [4], [5], [6], etc.). - Dravecky (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Mantera's Party Dream[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I understand the article could be worse and, compared to other articles, this is acceptable but why I nominated this is that I can't find any good sources to add to the current ones; searches with the best results are this and this (as well as nothing at Highbeam, thefreelibrary, Newspapers Archive and browser). They seem to be associated with other notable people but I simply can't find much to improve this and it seems they haven't had much activity these past few years. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruxit[edit]

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)).

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

References are press releases or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Too new to receive much significant coverage with the my searches here (a flashing amount of PR) and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added reliable / neutral sources e.g. gartner. Already 100+ customers. Comparable companies are also listed. scepticeditor (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)— scepticeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Although it started poorly it seems it was with good intent, and if you try you can find good sources for the company. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be comparable pages in the same industry, and there's some noteworthy mentions - author and contributors just need to add more sources and meat to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.42.90 (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes, it's a COI editor who has not followed wp:coi guidelines. And yes, there are a few possible RS, although there are non-RS that should be removed. (E.g. the Forbes articles are by contributors, thus close to being blog posts.) However, this is a product launched less than one year ago, and I think that we should extend WP:TOOSOON to the software category, with a guideline that states that an article consisting primarily of product launch announcements (which, even when in RS are a form of publicity) is just too soon. LaMona (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admins, please note: COI/SPA alert. Better than your average spam entry, but not seeing any serious coverage. Blogs, mentions in passing, etc. I don't see how it passes WP:CORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone above says "if you try you can find good sources for the company", but I am unable to do so. I guess it depends on how you define "good". Someone else says "contributors just need to add more sources", but is apparently unwilling/unable to do so themselves. Overall, I don't think this company meets criteria outlined at WP:CORP. Deli nk (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2015 (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. Notable per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:HASREFS, as the participants have mentioned. Borderline notable. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seedups[edit]

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

Not notable--sourcing is essentially press rleeases DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional references available for notability. See [7]--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)--Nowa (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HASREFS. I have just added two references. --Edcolins (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have you actually cared to examine the sources? Most of them merely discuss it in passing along with other startups. No major source has covered it exclusively. All coverage is less than a year old. No indication it is notable per GNG or WP:CORP. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a point, but I still think that the two sentences in Bessant (2015), the whole paragraph in Sixt (2014), half a page in a 2011 EENC Report (which I have just added), and the four other references in various newspapers (one of them -just added as well- indicating that Seedups had been "featured in the Forbes top 10 crowdfunding platform list") together establish notability. Borderline perhaps, but sufficient to keep IMHO. Although the depth of coverage might not be substantial, multiple independent sources exist (WP:CORPDEPTH). --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 2015 (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 08:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Institute of CPAs[edit]

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

No sources discuss this organization in depth. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." It says nothing of depth. This page has multiple, as well as verifiable, third-party sources on the topic. MrDaveCone (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — MrDaveCone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have cited the introduction section of Wikipedia:Notability. Note that there are other notability guidelines that go into more detail on what qualities specific subjects should have to be considered notable. In this case, this article describes an organization, and it therefore falls under the subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies, readable at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). That guideline specifically mentions depth of coverage as an important quality for assessing notability. That being said, I haven't looked into this subject all that much yet, ~~and it appears a couple editors below have found that such in-depth coverage exists~~. Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Striking: misread a few comments. Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree article needs better references. Unsourced material and primary sources should be removed; nominator makes a valid point that no source discussed the article in-depth. A way to find better such sources is look here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. The organization is notable and has multiple references. Perhaps additional and more in-depth articles can be included, but to me it looks like sufficient secondary sources to keep the article. Bahooka (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another professional association, no claim of notability, refs are accounting news and trivial personnel announcements, no in-depth covergae, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The group and people associated with it have received coverage by a bunch of reliable sources it seems (even just from searching right now, I came across this), but I don't see the kind of in-depth material on the group itself that we really need to have a good article. As well, the page as it's written now has a ton of material in it without any citation at all. Still, that you have publication after publication referring to the organization makes me lean towards keeping it, even if a lot of it has to be scrapped. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source you give is a WP:GNG, tright out of the textbook: "The subject says blah blah blah..." The article is three pages on some tax, and in one paragraph the CPA association's spokesman makes a very short statement about it. Kraxler (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RMH Teleservices[edit]

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

Rather open and shut case for a non-notable company and I'm not sure if it can at least be mentioned at the NCO Group article. My searches were here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably even a G11, as nothing said in the article indicates any notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no indication of notability Kraxler (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 28 August 2015 (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 Chuck Mosley. The !voters say that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but failed to show them. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man with the Action Hair[edit]

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

Seems like this fits ((Db-a9)) as this article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and the artist does not have an article but it was reverted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cement (Cement album) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We probably should have an article on Cement (band) as the amount found from a Google search is bordering on enough (bio and 2 reviews at Allmusic, various other sources discussing the band as part of Mosley's career) and there will surely be print coverage from the era, but even if it's covered within the Chuck Mosley article, that should be enough to make an A9 deletion for the album articles invalid. Looking at the two album articles, though, there's barely anything there beyond an infobox and tracklisting for each. In this case a redirect to Chuck Mosley would seem appropriate unless further coverage can be found (it probably does exist - print coverage from 1994 isn't well represented online). --Michig (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout the nominator for determinedly ignoring the language of A9. Cement is a side project of a notable artist whose other albums, solo and with groups, typically have articles. The case for deletion simply isn't made; the nominator has failed to comply with WP:BEFORE and bases his argument on the current condition of the article rather than the subject's actual notability, which is contrary to deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: and @Michig: Notability isn't inherited, so if an article on an album by a band which is a redirect to an artist which is notable (primarily for his work with another band) is to exist here, then it has to have sources which establish its independent notability. This does not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuck Mosley. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 21 August 2015 (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 Chuck Mosley. One !voter says that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but failed to show them. There is one source that shows the existence of the album, but notability is not shown. "Cement (Cement album)" doesn't seem to be a plausible asearch item, but the redirect may serve to recreate the article if and when sources can be added to show the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cement (Cement album)[edit]

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

Seems like this fits ((Db-a9)) as this article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, and the artist does not have an article but it was reverted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man with the Action Hair —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We probably should have an article on Cement (band) as the amount found from a Google search is bordering on enough (bio and 2 reviews at Allmusic, various other sources discussing the band as part of Mosley's career) and there will surely be print coverage from the era, but even if it's covered within the Chuck Mosley article, that should be enough to make an A9 deletion for the album articles invalid. Looking at the two album articles, though, there's barely anything there beyond an infobox and tracklisting for each. Given the article titles, Cement (Cement album) is going to be useless as a redirect, so I would go with deletion here unless further coverage can be found (it probably does exist - print coverage from 1993 isn't well represented online). --Michig (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout the nominator for determinedly ignoring the language of A9. Cement is a side project of a notable artist whose other albums, solo and with groups, typically have articles. The case for deletion simply isn't made; the nominator has failed to comply with WP:BEFORE and bases his argument on the current condition of the article rather than the subject's actual notability, which is contrary to deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chuck Mosley. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:44, 21 August 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Nazre[edit]

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

The only thing this person seems potentially notable for is the Pao vs. Kleiner-Perkins lawsuit, but someone keeps deleting all reference to that and replacing it with a good score of personal weblinks - WP:NOTLINKEDIN. -- Seelefant (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have significant independent coverage, have sat on the boards of numerous startups and was a partner in a well known firm. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a run of the mill businessman. Generally we only have articles on heads of major firms or people who get significant independent coverage in business fields.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor, with insufficient substantial references. Being a partner in an investment firm is not automatic notability, though it can result on being on the board of the company one has financed; the involvement with Pao is incidental; and there is nothing else. FWIW, the subject originally started this himself. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the media attention this guy got was because of the whole Ellen Pao incident which as described above is incidental at best. However, even if that makes him notable enough because of that whole fiasco, I find it suspicious that most of his involvement with Pao has been edited out by someone who most likely is a PR person for him/himself. This page either needs to be deleted, locked to outside editors, or the Pao information needs to be re-added since it is clearly of significance. GoldenSHK —Preceding undated comment added 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article about an average businessman, known only for a single event, having been named in the Ellen Pao case (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Analia Smith, where there's a sock farm doing nothing but spamming vanity links to Ajit Nazre's private web sites, adding promotional material about Nazre on various articles, and removing sourced material about people named in the Pao case, not only on this article but also on other articles...). Thomas.W ^talk 17:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In case anyone doesn't know this article is just a recreation of Aniruddha (Ajit) Nazre, an article that was speedily deleted on 2 May 2015 per A7 ("No credible indication of importance"). Thomas.W ^talk 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: This article is probably created by Ajit Nazre himself, at least creator should have used another username while creating article. But this article shows that he is little bit notable. I will suggest creator to try WP:AFC procedure if he wants this article in mainspace sometime in future. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of questionable diagnostic tests[edit]

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

items have individual articles and a directory of them already exists in the form of Category Alternative medical diagnostic methods, title doesn't seem encyclopedic and NPOV Cyrej (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2015 (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/2015 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a concern with running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH here, but that's not a reason to delete. I would much rather prefer that we cite secondary or tertiary sources calling the group of these tests questionable. Whether you agree with QuackWatch or not, I think we can all agree that it has an obvious POV and fails WP:MEDRS. All of this logic applies to List of questionable diseases as well, which looks to be in similar shape. shoy (reactions) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). This is not duplicative of the category because it allows for discussion of tests which are questionable in some respects while valid in others. Example: thermography may be valid in some circumstances but as a primary diagnostic test for breast cancer (something for which it is aggressively promoted by quacks), it is very questionable indeed. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though maybe rename it to scam, fake, quack, or if you must, psuedoscientific diagnostic tests. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guy. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan L. Howard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. (Sourced only to a blog and a page at the "publishersweekly" web site.) PROD was removed without any explanation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak either way~~ Keep (thx to added reviews) Author of fantasy fiction. Books held in 200-500 libraries in Worldcat. Published by Doubleday (respectable publisher). Two books reviewed in Booklist [8], [9]. Excerpted by NPR (for some reason) [10]. Lots of fantasy fiction blogs and sites. I cannot find neutral sources, however. It's very weak for an author, and I could support either a keep or a delete with this evidence. LaMona (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found quite a few reviews out there for his work, so he would pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are now plenty of references to reviews in reliable sources of his work, which is sufficient sourcing to write an article about him as an author. Sandstein 07:01, 22 August 2015 (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. Everyone knows the drill - High schools/Unis are kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Anyone wanting to merge should obviously visit the TP (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jivraj Mehta Institute of Technology, Anand[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable university. This is the same as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR.JIVRAJ MEHTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,ANAND. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as clearly show in the guidelines of notability for universities, which are not considered notable simply because they exist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By consensus they are. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what you're saying is that AfD has been ignoring the guidelines? Hmmm. Perhaps one of those things needs to be changed - either AfD should begin following the guidelines, or the guidelines should be changed? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The guidelines should indeed be changed. It's been attempted, but there has been resistance from a few editors who oppose the general consensus and think their opinions are more important than the majority's. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for that, Necrothesp, however to me that makes the case stronger that AfD should be following those guidelines. If an attempt was made at the guideline level, and there was no consensus reached there, than AfD should be following those guidelines. Other projects look to those guidelines (e.g. AfC), and there should be consistency in their application. I don't know, maybe that's just crazy thinking on my part, to want consistent application of guidelines, but it is the way I feel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus is reached in many places, including AfD. Just because a handful of disgruntled editors disrupt changes to guidelines should not mean that consensus is not acknowledged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 13:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Recognised degree-awarding institution. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES we keep these articles on Wikipedia (also see WP:INDAFD). — CutestPenguin^Hangout 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any independent sources for that? Sources to the school [11]] or that are with Gujarat Technological University [12][13] aren't really independent and the other two sources [14][15] are maps. Bullet two under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES points out a exception "when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is KEEP, merge, or redirect-without-deleting, then HISTMERGE all but the last two edits of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR.JIVRAJ MEHTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,ANAND into the article and discard the remaining two edits. If the result is DELETE or anything that results in the page's deletion, then delete Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DR.JIVRAJ MEHTA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,ANAND as well using whatever criteria apply (WP:G13 comes to mind). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and related reasons given above, and consider merging with "parent" institution Gujarat Technological University. The decision to merge or not is editorial, not policy/guideline/precedent-driven and should be done outside of this AFD after the AFD closes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:01, 27 August 2015 (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 08:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fazio[edit]

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

Slim claim of notability, so am not speedying. But a search does not throw up much to establish notability imo. TheLongTone (talk)

Have just added a bunch more references. Multiple appearances on TV & radio with Whoopi Goldberg, among others. Obviously, I say notable. Nigelroberts (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference to IMDB page Nigelroberts (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nigelroberts (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) User:Nigelroberts is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are very poor - IMdB, The New York Post, and social media. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show notability of this person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Bearian, Washington Post and New York Post look like real newspapers to me. The various TV shows mentioned seem pretty well known. And I don't know which of the sources you call social media. There's no Facebook, Twitter or similar in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.22.217 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It would appear this individual has been interviewed in the NY Times and Washington Post about hotel concierges but aside from these two interviews, I'm not sure if there's any enduring notability here. I suspect these to be a once off thing and without more coverage I don't feel WP:SIGCOV is being met. Maybe in the future but we couldn't crystal ball the future. My inclination is to have it deleted until more coverage becomes apparent. Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This individual has some notability, and this isn't a really clear-cut case. However, I believe that it's established by the sources that the concierge service concepts that he's been promoting are more notable than him, just like most Americans know the Ford Motor Company and can name other big car companies but most people can't name the Ford CEO (Mark Fields). I find myself agreeing with Mkdw. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, as there is not significant non-trivial coverage of the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2015 (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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swamulavaari Lingotam[edit]

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

I question whether this is a real place. The article is self-contradictory: it says that the village is part of the Nalgonda district in the Indian state of Telangana, and it's in a couple of Nalgonda-related categories, but it also claims that it's within the state of Andhra Pradesh, and it uses the term "mandal", which the tehsil article says is a term associated particularly with Andhra Pradesh. It can't be in both: the article says it's within Nampally, which isn't on the border between the two states. These contradictions make me question whether it's real, especially because no sources are presented. I ran a Google search, hoping to find something useful to salvage the article, but even excluding Wikipedia results found nothing useful: I got a mix of WP: mirrors that simply don't mention their source, along with lots of autogenerated pages and other uselessness. All this being said I'll happily withdraw this if someone can find solid evidence that this place is a real village (hopefully someone more familiar with local languages will be able to do it better than I), but without evidence at this point, we can't keep the article. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but recommend renaming the article. It exists in the 2011 census (as Swamulavari Lingotam(577261), population of 2,057), and apparently there's a school there. One thing I'm not sure about is whether Swamulavari Lingotam(576836), with a population of 2,629, is another part of the same village but in a different mandal, or a separate place with the same name. Telangana only became a state in 2014, so it's out of date information rather than a contradiction. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The location was changed in the article from Choutuppal to Nampally by an IP, but no explanation was provided. These are the mandals mentioned in the census, both in Nalgonda district. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. It definitely seems to be an inhabited place - or, rather, two inhabited places about 20 miles apart, both in Nalgonda district, one in Choutuppal mandal at 17°17′39″N 78°57′00″E / 17.2942452°N 78.950087°E / 17.2942452; 78.950087, a few miles north-east of Choutuppal itself (with the school noted by User:Peter James, and the other in Nampally mandal at or near 16°54′19″N 78°53′57″E / 16.9052952°N 78.8991202°E / 16.9052952; 78.8991202, west of Nampally. The problem is that it is not always easily possible to tell from sources which of the two is being referred to. PWilkinson (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems it's a real place, but I'd like to get some more eyes on this to clear up the confusion about which real place it is. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Village really exists, I have added one source regarding population and any kind of settlement deserves article, specially when this village is having population more than 2,500. But article do need improvement. I will suggest creator to add more sections on "demography", "transport", "governance and administration" etc. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 09:57, 27 August 2015 (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 an editor would like to userfy it to their user space it may be done at WP:REFUND. Mkdw ^talk 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giant GRB Ring[edit]

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

This article is based on the claims of a single group, WP:PRIMARY sourced from arXiv. The authors look rather likely to be closely involved. I see little evidence of any currency for this term, which gets exactly seven Google hits - at best it's WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no possibility of good sourcing when the only things available are the paper itself and the press release issued by the journal [16]. --Amble (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, note that the paper is in MNRAS, and the arxiv version is only linked for convenience. Still no independent sourcing possible. --Amble (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is only one source published about this GRB ring (hence original research and WP:NOR.) When there are multiple, reliable sources to verify the article may be recreated. --189.106.231.36 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are many multiple, reliable sources:

There are many more. Astroplanet (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, those all track back to one source. That's why it gets so few Google hits. You're engaged in trying to use Wikipedia popularise a novel idea, and that is always a problem here. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! I do not try such thing. None of them referring the wikipedia. Most of them using the Royal Astronomical Society press release as a source.

You might use another Google. Mine gives several hundred thousand hits ;-) Astroplanet (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they were referring to Wikipedia. Your search probably was not quoted, the proper search is "Giant GRB ring" quoted. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! OK. But why search Giant GRB ring? I do not care what is the enwiki article name. Search "Large GRB Ring" (210 000). I search GRB ring Balazs (25 000) and also "GRB"+"Ring"+"balazs" (17 000). I hope we are discussing, not fighting. Astroplanet (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Martin451 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the source is at arXiv, note that it is only a repository/archive and is awaiting for peer-review. If it passes, then it will be published in a scientific journal, if not, it will be scrapped. The process can take months, if it passes. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in MNRAS, which is peer reviewed. That's still not enough to establish adequate sourcing or notability. --Amble (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can delete any article. However, for big GRB ring or huge or giant GRB ring one can get many hits on the web. If somebody wants to read about it why not from the wikipedia?

I believe we agree there are many reliable sources. I do not agree with Amble, that the subject is not notable. "objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" I already listed above some sources. There are other sources which do not reefer the original article nor the MNRAS, and even this week there are new pages about the GRB ring:

also there are essays about the structure of the Universe which include the ring.

For example: http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/cosmos-structure2.htm Also this page collected many other sources.

Therefore, I am still suggesting to keep it. Astroplanet (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "have found what appears to be" is what killed it for me - one group of researchers think they found something, but with no other corroboration it's just a theory. Everything is directly related to either the paper itself or the RAS press release. The Discovery article is the only one that didn't just copy/paste it verbatim on their own pages (though the majority of the information is identical). Fails NASTRO and is definitely TOOSOON. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. See http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/cosmos-structure2.htm Astroplanet (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single paper, nobody citing it (yet), single-issue editors weighing in. Come back in a year, maybe it will be notable, more likely it will join a long line of anisotropy papers fading from memory. Lithopsian (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate either userfy or move to DRAFTspace -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (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. Don't usually close on 2 (Ignoring the last vote!) !votes but since nomination the article's been heavily improved & sourced so no reason to delete now. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Spiegel[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about instrument maker with no claim to notability or importance. A7 was declined for some reason. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google Books snippet view of a museum publication on "Violin makers of Hungary" shows a comparative being made that some instrument "does not reach the quality of those of János Spiegel" and the book also has at least some coverage of the subject in his own right [17]. Not sufficient for biographical notability in itself but maybe indicative of a line for investigation. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable maker of bowed string instruments. Sources (books) added sufficient to pass GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is clear from a Google search that the subject was a noted instrument maker. He lived before the Internet age so it is hardly surprising that online sources are hard to come by. We need to await hardcopy searches of Hungarian source material but, meanwhile, I see no benefit in deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has become too harsh and exclusive. Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Professional Coach[edit]

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

Delete: - very little information, no sources cited. Thurrigorn (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. This AFD was never properly listed when Thurrigorn nominated it, so I have done this for them now. The justification isn't particularly strong, but from my own searches I can't find sources for showing that demonstrate that this should be a standalone article. SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete as I found nothing better with this probably being the best. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Unsourced orphan, nothing here to establish notability. A Coaching article already exists. ABF99 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too new to be notable. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Filmsaaz. Discounting single-purpose accounts. Sandstein 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6th Filmsaaz[edit]

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)).

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

I don't think this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I proposed a merge to Filmsaaz but this seemed to have been hi-jacked by WP:SPA WP:SOCKPUPPETs. I see no evidence of this being notable and so think it should be deleted. It could also possibley be merged and redirected. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Filmsaaz- although there is frightfully little reliably sourced content to merge and what is sourced is probably already covered in that article so a delete would not harm much of anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Or merge per TheRedPenOfDoom, no independent RSs.Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- it is a short film festival which has its own standing. There is a scope for improvement of the article.Hosnimobarok (talk) — Hosnimobarok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hosnimobarok, after the merge discussion was hijacked by WP:SPAs, I'm concerned that you have now emerged, and on your 1st day of editing have come here to defend this organisation. Are you connected to the other WP:SPAs and do you have a WP:COI? Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not connected to any WP:SPAs nor I have a [[WP::COI]]. I have never visited the festival country so connection with SPAs is a distant dream! Aren't newcomers welcome at Wikipedia Boleyn. Hosnimobarok (talk) — Hosnimobarok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 13:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone interested can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyThink where there is evidence of using sockpuppetry to try to keep this page. No evidence that Hosnimobarok is involved, but I am still dubious about an WP:SPA entering a discussion in this manner (see WP:DUCK). Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- whether or not actual socks, WP:MEAT is clearly evident of SPA COI editors associated with the school making edits and arguments that are indistinguishable from each other (notice for example the frequent claim that a celebrity "gracing" the proceedings is somehow evidence of notability, or the endless protestations that a passing mention in a national publication should by its mere existence prove notability). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Before accusing others, please prove your neutrality against Aligarh Muslim University as is evident in Talk:Aligarh_Muslim_University, we can clearly see that even in the past you had issues with this university and reprimanded by other editors. You don't carry a neutral view regarding this university from the beginning so its allied institutes. And, regarding edits and its similarity, let me clear one thing to you, we editors don't go to field to see the happenings, we only rely on sources and in this case we relied on several news websites which are most reliable in India which you don't recognize as reliable. Regarding celebrity gracing the event definitely makes this festival an important one and the celebrity was non other than Nawazuddin Siddiqui who is a star in India. So every editors who claimed the celebrity gracing have the same thinking the 6th Filmsaaz is also important because a celebrity graced the occasion as a chief guest. Firstly you raised about notability which was resolved by putting some more references, but you didn't get satisfied as you have a biased opinion as seen in Talk:Aligarh_Muslim_University. Do you think that New York times come and make a indepth report on 6th Filmsaaz? Remember in India all newspapers and news sites are like that only. We have to be practical. No sources referred in the article contradicted anything written in it and all sources are most reliable.AJ_Think 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) — Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My neutrality is evident in my edits to make the Aligarh Muslim University and related articles reflective of the reliable third party source coverage. Please prove your neutrality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arifjwadder is one of the WP:SPAs who emerged to discuss this article and was found to be a likely user of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY in the cause of defending this article, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyThink.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Filmsaaz. Clearly not notable enough for its own article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- it must not be merged to Filmsaaz, as if it merged then the award list cannot be accommodated in Filmsaaz. I think it is notable enough to have its own article with its international character.Firangee (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC) (([reply]
Comment Yet another WP:SPA emerging to argue for this article. Firangee, were you canvassed to come here or are you a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)— Firangee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Please assume good faith.The article is notable according to WP:GNG and It is representing fairly, proportionately and without bias, all of the significant news and views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All third party references are reliable and genuine secondary news website in India.Firangee (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. For example, the TOI piece is a promotional for request for submissions, not third party. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Filmsaaz given the above arguments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Filmsaaz per the arguments made above. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league ballplayer. Wizardman 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Does not meet WP:NBASE, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 28 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Shoulders[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Sources out there and provided are only routine coverage. Wizardman 12:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator's reasoning.--Yankees10 17:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Does not meet WP:NBASE, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:58, 28 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Xtreme Combat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable MMA organization. The first AfD was a non-administrative close as 'Keep'. Some felt this was incorrect as consensus was not clear - see the article's Talk page). The issue besides notability was the lack of third party reliable sources which has not been addressed over a year after that first AfD. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor MMA organization. Besides routine sports reporting, the only coverage is about their broadcast deals. That some of their fights will be available via streaming or on some regional pay TV network doesn't seem like enough to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having some fighters who were or became notable fight in one of their events does not grant notability to this organization because notability is not inherited. It doesn't really matter what tier this organization is, although the fact that there's a lack of significant independent coverage might explain why it isn't even considered second tier. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 28 August 2015 (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 Primeval. I never close on 1 !vote but A) as noted below (and at the prev AFD) there's absolutely nothing on her notability wise(The sources below are poor in terms of notability her), and B) It seems the obvious outcome to redirect to something she's known for and plus redirects are cheap anyway. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails notability, SPA and fans forums pushing re-add. Murry1975 (talk) 11:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles on Wiki with less notability and less citations and yet no one is pushing for those to be deleted? This page was deleted originally on account of notability due to Ms Kearney having had less than two notable roles - at the time, Primeval and Tyrant. Since then, she has starred in series three of The Following in a major role as well as been confirmed as a regular in an upcoming production. Define notability, please, as am sure over 50% of actress/actor Wiki pages will fail compared to your definition also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.104.122 (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — 109.176.104.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Further to the above, may I request the article be secured if it is allowed to remain? It's been up less than 24 hours and already some 'anti-fans' have amended several times to reflect what they wish to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.104.122 (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect to Primeval per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kearney (2nd nomination). The other articles we have on similar actors indicate a consensus on notability. Based on that two full seasons on Primeval and most of a season on The Following are minimally notable enough to pass WP:ENT. However I can not find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to verify and sustain a free standing article. Note passing notability guidelines permit but do not require an article. In this case it is still WP:TOOSOON Jbh ^Talk 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC) - Updated !vote. Jbh ^Talk 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Updated rational. Jbh ^Talk 16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit to being biased as I've been working on this for almost a year and will keep it updated as and when new information and sources become available. As stated above, there are articles on similar subjects where notability has not been an issue. Updated to add: We've now got confirmation she'll be in all 8 episodes of the new Netflix show 'Flaked' & will be the female lead ^[1] AlexaP-83 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — AlexaP-83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Actress is gaining in recognition as roles increase. Notability will no doubt increase as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.8.180 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — 92.17.8.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Sources for The Following: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]. Sources for Flaked: ^[6] - show is in pre-production so more sources will become available. JustGR (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC) — JustGR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Further independent sources (I haven't added these to the page as don't want to mess it up) ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] ^[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustGR (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://deadline.com/2015/08/will-arnett-flaked-ruth-kearney-cast-lead-netflix-series-1201505814/ Deadline: Ruth Kearney Cast As Female Lead
^ http://tvline.com/2014/10/14/the-following-season-3-spoilers-hunter-parrish-character-details/ TVLine Article on Hunter Parrish and Ruth Kearney's upcoming role on The Following
^ http://tvline.com/2015/03/02/the-following-season-3-preview-kevin-bacon/ The Following S3 Preview
^ http://insidepulse.com/2015/03/02/the-following-what-to-expect-from-tonights-season-premiere-news-on-natural-born-killers-esque-couple/ The Following S3 Premiere Review
^ http://www.tvfanatic.com/2014/10/hunter-parrish-to-murder-people-on-the-following-season-3/ Hunter Parrish to Murder People on The Following
^ https://twitter.com/agentMFM/status/634034331091136517 Agent M Ford Tweet
^ http://www.cultbox.co.uk/interviews/syndicated/ruth-kearney-primeval-interview Ruth Kearney Primeval Interview
^ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/s48/primeval/news/a292577/ruth-kearney-teases-primeval-role.html Ruth Kearney teases Primeval Role
^ http://m.digitalspy.com/british-tv/s48/primeval/tubetalk/a233175/first-look-at-the-new-primeval-cast.html First Look at Primeval's New Cast
^ http://2paragraphs.com/2015/03/who-is-daisy-on-the-following/ Who Is Daisy on The Following?
^ http://scifiandtvtalk.typepad.com/scifiandtvtalk/2011/05/primevals-ben-mansfield-captains-log.html Ben Mansfield Talks Primeval
^ http://www.buzzfocus.com/2011/10/06/primeval-series-5-hits-bbc-america-this-november-episode-guide/ Primeval Series 5 Hits BBC America

Comment I went through the referenced provided in the article, most were not RS or were inappropriate. TheCult TV Awards are not a major award. There is really no coverage about her and very little biographical information. After reviewing this material I am more solidly convinced it is WP:TOOSOON for this subject. Jbh ^Talk 16:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Subahan[edit]

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

URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. So I'm requesting to delete these kind of pages from Wikipedia, also please block this user from creating these kinds of articles. Josu4u (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlike some of this author's other articles, the references provided here do actually mention the subject of the article they are being used to reference. However, there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources for this reality-show runner-up to meet inclusion standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. There was a similar discussion recently about another contestant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoorthi, but I don't think it even comes close to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we commonly delete runners up in reality shows. No evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garcia (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting and doesn't yet meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria for boxers and I don't believe the coverage is anything but routine. He may become a notable pro, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now. There is a Luis Garcia (Venezuelan boxer) who deserves an article (fought twice for world titles) and is not written about yet, and here this guy who hasn't done much yet has one. Antonio El Grandioso One Martin (Dang, I forgot I had to write this too but here it is!) 12:35, 27 August 2015 (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 - I'm not entirely convinced she meets GNG but either way judging by some of the news sources I'd certainly say notability is there (just!). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbi Garcia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, Fails ~~NACTOR &~~ GNG –Davey2010^Talk 08:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems she actually passes NACTOR so I've amended that but I still believe she fails GNG which as far as I know overrides NACTOR. –Davey2010^Talk 12:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same rationale as in previous AfD. She has been covered in some non-GMA-affiliated sources ass well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep nomination withdrawn--Savonneux (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby (2015 Tamil film)[edit]

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

No sourcing. No evidence of notability. Almost entirely a plot summary. WP:NFILM Savonneux (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator--Savonneux (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS

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

WP:INDAFD: "Baby 2015 film" "Baby Tamil Movie" "D Suresh" "Manoj Bharathiraja" "Shira Gaarg"

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

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

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

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

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

Keep it was an easy task to find sources to meet WP:NF and begin work to improve the improvable, as that is the way we build an encyclopedia to serve its reader. Others are welcome to join in. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a note to @Savonneux: topic notability does not have to be "found" in an article, as evidence of notability is found through a diligent search for sources and, if found, notability may then be presumed. Lacking sources in a sourcable topic, is a reason to fix or perhaps tag with ((sources)), but not a reason to delete. And that an article by a newcomer has problematic format, we have reason to then tag a notable topic for editorial attention (WP:ATD-T), but again a long plot is not a valid deletion rationale. And if you had found the same number of sources discussing this new film as did I and brought it here anyway, please remember, Afd is not to force cleanup.

And to new contributor Logeshbabueee, please accept our apologies. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even seen page WP:INDAFD. I searched Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL which brings up eleventy billion hits for a Hindi film entirely unrelated to this. Being almost entirely plot summary with no sources at all is enough to bring it up for discussion WP:NOTPLOT. You went the extra mile, grats. Don't assume a lack of GF on my part or ignorance of WP:BEFORE--Savonneux (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Findsources set by an AFD template is not always the best. I like to employ a little google-foo and stretch beyond its often cursory offering. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as a speedy keep.--Savonneux (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2015 (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. Notability does seem to be there and the prev version is certainly alot better! (Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards for kindly reverting!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri Girish[edit]

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

Whether intended or not (and signs show it is quite intended), this is very promotional and although I'm not sure the notability and significance of the awards, my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing, improvement and notability including here, here, here and here. Pinging taggers and one author (Pharoah of the Wizards, who surprises me that he started this article) @Hekerui, Jayron32, and Pharaoh of the Wizards: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Thanks for your message.I have reverted back to the Stub version of December 2008 when I created it sadly have not followed this page since 2010 with over 14K pages on with my watchlist growing since 2006.You can try and and Indian Search here or this .The Hindu which extensively covers Carnatic music and Madras Music Season has covered her Here ,Here,Here,Here ,Here and also in other sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dude, 5 years is a long damn time for me to remember tagging this article; thanks for the ping though. Per sources provided by PotW, looks fine to me. --Jayron 32 11:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed the previous better version but the article still seems of concern so I'll wait for others to comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO has been demonstrated with the links. Hekerui (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2015 (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 speedily deleted by RHaworth per CSD A7 (does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCPHOBBIES.com[edit]

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

This, whether intended or not, is not notable and is borderline promotional (but blatant enough for A7 & G11) and my searches found nothing better than a Books result; I could've PROD'd this but I wanted comments. Pinging taggers @Ajmint and AllyD: for comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company doesn't seem particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2015 (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. Being tersely cited as an example of bad science doesn't lend the journal notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Veritas[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no coverage in reliable sources with the possible exception of a brief mention of the associated organization on Quackwatch, which is not good enough to meet WP:GNG. If I had known what our notability guidelines were in 2013, I would not have created this page. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have an obligation to include journals like this when possible as part of our information to the readers, and there's really nowhere to put this but mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, would you care to elaborate as to what policy your keep !vote is based on? This journal does not appear to meet WP:NJOURNALS. Everymorning (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that notability is a guideline, and according to the express wording of WP:N, exceptions can be made whenever it would serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Even if WP:N did not say that it is not the only basis for deciding , still the fundamental policy of IAR and according to fundamental policy of IAR would provide for such exceptions. It serves the purpose of an encyclopedia for people to be able to evaluate the sources used in it. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Uh. . .DGG? Your argument looks like WP:LOSE, WP:VALINFO. Are you sure you want to violate Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:N states "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" -this journal has not, and "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1.It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" - this journal does not. Yes, it also states "occasional exceptions may apply." but this isn't one of those. At best, there could be a redirect from this title to Vaccine controversies which could include a few words on the journal. It is interesting (but is it relevent??) that the article creator is also the nominator of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not unsympathetic to DGG's position, but I'm unable to support it by policy and unwilling to open the Pandora's Box of invoking IAR to retain this on "public good" grounds. It's been written about by several prominent science bloggers, but those do not constitute reliable sources. It has been included on Quackwatch's list of nonrecommended periodicals, but that's not significant coverage. As a tertiary source, for better or worse, we are bound by what others publish and discuss. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - As an actual medical publication, Medical Vertias has little value. However, as a disinformation source, it's been referenced by / referred to different books, magazines, and newspapers. Here you have The Australian reporting on a controversy over university-paid funds going to a Medical Veritas-related effort. The journal gets panned as "a conspiracy-driven publication". Here you have Forbes labeling the journal as a "repository of dubious science" and criticizing the distortion of CDC-related data done in the journal as well as elsewhere. Infamy is still notability, although I don't really have strong feelings either way on this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also have this in a Cambridge University Press work on pediatric medicine as just one of the examples of the negative references made to the journal in books. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2015 (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 speedily deleted A10 by DGG. (non-admin close) shoy (reactions) 18:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubin David[edit]

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

Reuben David already exists! Kartik Mistry ^talk 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tagging it with speedy as a dupe.--Savonneux (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2015 (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. Speedied as an obvious hoax. None of the refs mentioned the playe, nor did they even refer to the matches claimed. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daler Zardakov[edit]

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

This article was created by Daler Zardakov himself. WP nickname is tracable from his VK account http://vk.com/dalewizard The links provided which are supposed to be sources of info don't confirm that he's a soccer player. He's not mentioned in any serious Russian soccer-related source altogether, nor is he found on official website of FC UFA. Furthermore this article says: On 3 June 2011, the very last day of the season in Segunda División, he made his debut as a professional, playing 24 minutes for FC Barcelona B in a 0–1 home defeat against Deportivo de La Coruña.[4]" is obviously fake. Deportivo La Coruna did not play in 2011 Segunda. Unsigned nomination by Volo fiori (talk · contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2015 (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 by Casliber with reason G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R. Christian Anderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Assertion that film won "Best Science Fiction Feature" turns up that it won at the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival. Routine reviews mention it as "absolute garbage." Savonneux (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Found no independent sources to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABF99 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Mkdw ^talk 19:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deejaycyfer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable/proper third party coverage. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC; not finding coverage in reliable sources about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing better regarding sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches revealed nothing which meets notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 28 August 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donncha O'Cearbhaill[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever. This person has a Wiki because they were questioned about a crime, then cleared? That violates BIO:CRIME. Cagepanes (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PERP, and the nominator is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Cullen328. Snappy (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Serious BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, BLP violations and lack of notability. Cavarrone 07:39, 27 August 2015 (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 Wikipedia:Non-admin_closureSavonneux (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gib Rides Home[edit]

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

Per WP:NBOOK The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works. I can only find one review on publishers weekly [18] which really shouldn't even count as it's routine coverage of almost all fiction released in the US. Also the article is borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE Savonneux (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand per WP:BITE and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH: This is a new editor and a bit of help in how to expand and create a better article is in order. Being mentioned at publisher's weekly at all is something. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little unfair. I helped out the creator with their other articles.--Savonneux (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While PW is a trade journal, they do not review every book that gets released in the US. They review a lot, but they are selective in what they choose (for every one they review there are at least hundreds that they do not) and the final reviews do undergo some sort of editorial process. There has been no official consensus on whether or not trade reviews of this type are unusable as a source and at this point in time they are considered to be acceptable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However that said, if the PW review is the only thing that's out there, then that would not be enough to salvage the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources, although they aren't the easiest to find if you don't know where to look. I will say that the article does need to be worked on as a whole, but now that notability has been established that's something that can be done at leisure. I also note that the book seems to be used as an educational tool in some classrooms, although that's more of an aside since it gives off the impression that there are likely more sources out there that are not on the Internet since this was written before the Internet really blew up to what it is now. ([19], [20]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if being on a suggested (not required) reading list is the same as The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools. Subject of instruction usually means being the topic of a class or at least a lesson. If it get's cleaned up I dont see why it couldnt be put on the author's page and a redirect put at this location. Many author's books can't meet the threshold for standalone articles.--Savonneux (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't tell me you found more reviews -.- Withdrawn by nominator--Savonneux (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2015 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted a couple of days ago, re-created with two sources: the author's own website, and a paragraph in a review of a genre (so the source is not primarily about the subject). The article says "little print" was expended but it was "immensely popular" - no obvious citation is given for this assertion. The author of the article asserts that this is unambiguous evidence of meeting WP:GNG, I am not seeing it myself. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference in question is certainly more than "a paragraph", and the game leads off the article. And what's the hurry here, do did read the check in note, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The two sources offered are WP:PRIMARY in one case and WP:UNRELIABLE in the other, the latter source having been published by game publisher with no clear reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly declare one of the UK's better known game reviewers as UNRELIABLE? Evans-Thirlwell has, literally, hundreds of articles about gaming published around the world in leading gaming magazines and even major newspapers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether this game publisher is well known or whether the author of the article has published elsewhere. The question is whether this particular source is a WP:Reliable source as we define the term. So far as I can tell, it is not. If you think I'm wrong, take the question to WP:RSN; if you get a consensus there that this is a reliable source, I will accept it. But I don't think that's what they'll decide. Msnicki (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This quite literally just came out of AfD and (at the very least) warranted a discussion before unilaterally overturning it. I asked for Maury's sources on the talk page and was told that the Kotaku section was "all this article really needs". I still haven't heard back on the German magazine citation, but I see no reason to buy that the Kotaku section (even in addition to whatever German mag is procured) constitutes significant coverage. This waste of time could have been avoided with just a little forward consideration. what's the hurry here—if there's no hurry, leave drafts in draftspace and we wouldn't be here? – czar 03:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have received word that the game is also on the cover of a MacFormat issue from 1994 (and I suspect the German reference is a reprint of this). I am tracking down that issue by emailing all the contemporary editors. The article consists of an entire column in the magazine which gave the game a rave review, a front-page mention (under the name "Star Trek", amusingly) along with the game itself on the CD.

But apparently we're now onto the part of the AfD where we invoke varied definitions of SIGCOV and start questioning everyone's GF. The best part is the attempt to turn the tables and blame me for this problem. What's, it's my fault you deleted this without even the slightest effort to contact any of the involved editors? Maybe you could have saved yourself all this precious time had you applied a little of that "forward consideration"?

No wonder less pig-headed editors than I are abandoning the project in droves.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, your enthusiasm for it is not in doubt, but this is a game that has essentially left no trace. This is no Elite. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burden's on you to present sources, Maury, especially if you're overturning a consensus. But you know that. The mudslinging is unnecessary. – czar 17:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, now I'm a time waster and mudslinger. In any event, the magazine article was not a version of MacFormat as I thought, but a US magazine, and has been added. I am now awaiting the MacFormat article as well, but as that magazine does not have an archive (can you believe it?) I have tracked down someone that has a copy in their garage and is sending scans to me as soon as he can find it. That will be three significant mentions in different formats, at least two of then dead-tree which the wiki seems to value more highly. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the scan of the Electronic Entertainment October 1994 citation? – czar 22:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless further sources arise, I'm not convinced what is currently present makes it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added Thanks to the help of another Wiki user, I have added a cite based on a lengthy (two pages printed) review from Inside Mac Games. That has been archived online, so feel free to read it. And in case anyone cares to check, yes, it's listed as an RS. The article now has three RS's, two of them online, so I can't wait to hear what the problem is now. Still waiting on the MacFormat too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I respect your right to your opinion but I have mine also and I'm not persuaded. Even if Inside Mac Games is considered reliable today, I'm don't believe that means it was reliable then. So far as I can tell, it was one guy publishing whatever he wanted. I'm also unsure what you consider to be those other two WP:RS. I note that your appeal at WP:RSN discussed above and archived here went nowhere. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion that IMG is considered RS, it's a fact. If you "don't believe" it should be RS, then take it to RSN and get consensus to remove it from the list. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my point. It may indeed be a RS now. Who cares. The question is whether it was a RS only two years into its being, at a time when clearly it was a self-published compendium of user contributions from an AOL forum as described in our article at Inside Mac Games. I cannot imagine it could have qualified as an RS then. If you actually draw some keep !votes based on this source, then maybe I'll take it to RSN for an opinion but I doubt that's going to be necessary. I don't agree that your other sources are reliable, either. I think you're still at zero. Msnicki (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMG is RS until you get consensus otherwise on RSN. What you clearly and repeatedly state is your opinion and the product of your imagination is of no consequence, any more than mine is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. RSN always considers the context of how the source is to be used. By "the list", I assume you mean WP:VG/RS's list of generally reliable sources. The mag was added without discussion many years ago and there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability (most notably Kotaku). I'm genuinely surprised at your tone and read of policy throughout this thread (especially considering your complaint about rules earlier in this thread...) I've asked politely several times, so I'll make one final request for scans or photos of the offline/physical sources you've added. I assume good faith that you verified the direct source material yourself, but since we're at AfD, I'd like to verify the degree to which they constitute in-depth coverage, which I can't get from the small mentions alone. – czar 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"RSN always considers"

Then take it to RSN where it can be considered.

"there is precedent for early versions of publications not showing reliability"

This is also a precedent for actually reading the references before assuming they fail RS. The issue in question, which you can download yourself, contains a complete list of the over a dozen contributors and editors. This includes, among several well-known names in the Mac community, two of the most widely referenced game reviewers on this project, appearing in hundreds of articles.

"I've asked politely several times"

You asked exactly one time. And you did so above the part where it says "Please add new comments below this notice.", which is why I never saw it. But fine, ping my account.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the article talk page, in my first post on this page, in the post you mentioned, and in my last post. The download doesn't work on my computer. A clean copy of that page and the other refs would be appreciated. – czar 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, feel free to ping the email address attached to my account here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any issues with the email? I have it in PNG format now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources exist for the Gameplay section? – czar 16:40, 25 August 2015 (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. Michig (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Honig[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 03:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough, not enough roles RbAxM33320 (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per IMDB, he's got 40 roles. Looks like whoever has been working on the article just hasn't fleshed it out. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but we can't list every actor on Wikipedia who has 40 or more roles. This isn't imdb.com. RbAxM33320 (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (about every non-notable actor), but I'm saying when you said "not enough roles", that doesn't apply here. You obviously didn't look for this person online, as there are a lot more movies he's been featured in, and therefore more coverage. So are you sure he's non-notable? What reasoning do you have? --Cagepanes (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where do number of roles equal notable or non-notable?

You're the one who brought that up. I'm just stating that wasn't accurate. --Cagepanes (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am the one who brought it up. I forgot to sign the above post. --TTTommy111 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:RS to establish notability. If someone else can prove otherwise, I will gladly change my !vote. --TTTommy111 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This actor fails WP:GNG by a mile.--Eat me, I'm a red bean _(discuss)^{what i've done} 03:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has become too harsh and exclusive. Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Afd, per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. The article even cites secondary sources which state that the term is insulting. Editors in the last AfD discussion argued the article is funny. prokaryotes (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can you explain why you think this is a WP:BLP issue? I don't see that it says anything at all about Al Gore personally, other than that he is a climate change activist, which we have a whole well-sourced article about. shoy (reactions) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Looking at some articles who mention the Gore effect, it seems to be not really RS compliant and appears to be often written in a partisan manner. The entire thing is just opinion. prokaryotes (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like how other articles use the phrase, change those articles instead. That's not an AFD issue. shoy (reactions) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This passes WP:GNG as was previously established. I don't see how this relates to WP:BLP, as it contains no unsourced attacks or negative comments directly against Al Gore. I'm also not sure which part of WP:NOT would apply here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, borderline propaganda WP:NOT -- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Many of the articles which source the term use it in a sense to deny global warming or to make fun of the topic, i.e. the kind of reporting here. And there aren't really a lot of RS reports. Thus, not notable. prokaryotes (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. We have Bushisms, which is essentially the same type of idea. Just because something is a bit goofy or potentially embarrassing doesn't immediately mean it falls under WP:NOT. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with such articles ... i withdraw my request then. prokaryotes (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is in the vein of the Pauli effect or the Adam Cheng effect, and it has received coverage from several notable places. I don't think it particularly qualifies as a "BLP" problem since being known as a 'jinx' is neither particularly pejorative nor insulting. It's sort of like saying "I can't ever hit the slot machines when ol' Bob is around!" I think it should stay. As pointed out before, we have Bushisms and other such articles in the same vein. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per arguments above: the argument from WP:BLP doesn't apply here, and I'm struggling to see the argument from WP:NOT. Though I see above that the proposer seems to be withdrawing the proposal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Records[edit]

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

I don't see any reason as to why this article would be considered notable due to a lack of references or independent sources. olowe2011 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(rationale updated)

Comment - I did not withdraw my nomination however I may have replaced or moved a template accidentally due to inexperience using some of Wikipedia's editing tools. With regards to this article; I am no expert in the music industry and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to convey an opinion in that light however, based on a general search of scholarly, news and other internet based records it's incredibly hard to find anything on imaginary records that would imply the company is notable. In fact some of the sources provided actually contradict the information provided in the article for example it (the article) states that the records group was founded in Manchester, England yet somehow released singles in the United States yet no sources seem to prove the fact that the Imaginary records founded in Manchester, England is the same Imaginary Records that released any singles in the United States. The sourcing and information on this company is so vague that there is actually no information to back up or assert any claims with any stone evidence. It's worth also noting that some sources point to webpages that hold absolutely no information on them either.

One major point to be argued as to why this should be deleted is that due to the lack of sources there is actually not enough information to go on to create an informative article about it. Information is in dispute for example if or not the Imaginary Records founded in Manchester, England is the same one that released the records in the United States of America and there seems to be no viable sources to settle the argument either way. This in itself proves that the company shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia even if its for the simple fact there isn't enough information available on the internet to provide for an article that we can be confident in it's factuality.

' Olowe2011 ^Talk 06:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it state anywhere in the article that this label released singles in the US? There are several sources in the article that confirm the article content - your suggestion that there is "no information to back up or assert any claims with any stone evidence" is clearly not true. Pretty much everything in the article is properly sourced so we already have an article for which we can be confident of its factuality. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Okay, please give me two independent sources that indicate the origin of this record label being in Manchester, England and two which name the albums they have created.

Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? NYT source cited in the article: "The Barrett album was the brainchild of Alan Duffy, proprietor of Britain's Imaginary Records. Mr. Duffy has since assembled and released tributes to the Kinks, the Byrds and Captain Beefheart; tributes to the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix and the 60's singer-songwriter Nick Drake are on the way." It's trivially easy to confirm releases by the label. Trevor Dann's book Darker Than the Deepest Sea (2006): "Alan Duffy, who ran the remarkable Imaginary Records label from his bedroom in Manchester, produced Brittle Days, the first tribute album to Nick Drake." Q.E.D. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator appears to have put an AfD tag on the article then changed their mind and removed it. I think that should be taken as withdrawing the nomination. --Michig (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another user has placed the AfD template back on the article (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yeah, it's going to be tough to prove this one's notability. Here are a list of weak sources I've found: [21], [22], [23], [24] and The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002. Psychology Press. 2002. pp. 584–. ISBN 978-1-85743-161-2.. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I created this article as one of my first edits to the wiki back in 2006, before I had any idea about notability criteria. I think the sources included show that this just about scrapes WP:N. (Incidentally, I think the Imaginary Records mentioned in The International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002, above, is a different company, based in the US) — sparklism ^hey! 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article could do with some cleanup, the NYT and Guardian coverage establishes notability in my book. Huon (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above (in case it wasn't clear that I think it should be kept). --Michig (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established and references are present to verify it. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 21 August 2015 (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. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion Jujutacular (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loui Urbano[edit]

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

I haven't found any external sources to indicate his importance, I've barely been able to verify he's actually the administrator for the group he claims to be administrator of. Completely fails WP:NN Westroopnerd (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiuolz Urbano & as a recreation of the article being discussed in the said discussion which is Eiuolz Urbano. theenjay 36 06:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedily as possible, as a blatant evasion of AfD consensus. Salt all plausible names. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 21 August 2015 (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. Per WP:NOTTOOHARSH ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pat (Youtuber)[edit]

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

I am not sure either source is reliable for notability, and I do not think we use Youtube subscriber counts as evidence. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Found nothing in reliable sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia has become too harsh. Hike The Monicas (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Hike The Monicas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This sort of vote will be excluded form the final consideration. Reasons are needed that are grounded in actual policy & guideline, not "because someone is a meaniehead". Tarc (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to make WP:MEANIEHEAD a blue link, now. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, only gamer forums. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if WP:GNG is met in the future. Mkdw ^talk 19:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Anne Bright[edit]

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

At first I didn't think to nominate as I saw many ref's, but after looking through the refs, I noticed they were all self-published. Then I noticed that this researcher has done nothing notable that is reliably sourced. The closest I could find after extensive searching was [25] Jcmcc (Talk) 00:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you check Google Scholar [26]?--TTTommy111 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to this! Ill keep it bookmarked. After looking through though, I don't see anything significant besides being a researcher in standard, non-notable studies. But thanks again. Jcmcc (Talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promo and not notable NealeFamily (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I did find a newspaper mention of her work [27]], and it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, I cannot find sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is someone who will almost certainly be notable after their obits are published, but I'll admit I'm not seeing the coverage right now. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If its not notable yet, but might be in the future, then thats a perfect example of wp:crystal Jcmcc (Talk) 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not. WP:crystal is for future events. This is a case of someone who is regularly involved in an adversarial justice system so needs to keep as much as possible of their life completely confidential while that's happening. The events have already happened, but the sources haven't been written / published yet. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of WP:crystal is that we don't make articles (or edits) that "will have reliable sources in the future". My recommendation would be that the creator ask an admin to move it to their userspace and republish it once notability can be established with reliable sources.

More likely WP:TOOSOON covers this situation NealeFamily (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2015 (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. Mkdw ^talk 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Okubo[edit]

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

Music arranger. Yes, he arranges a lot of songs, but it is not clear how notable he is. Has he won any awards or charted any top songs directly from his work? Has been tagged for notability since 2011. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one reference that is currently posted in the article only refers to Okubo in a list of credits for the two works. No analysis or biographical information or whether it was charting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's the search from Media Arts DB that shows he has music credits in anime: [28] Not sure if that means he's notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to establish WP:GNG. --TTTommy111 (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete with only [29]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find! I was hoping for more articles like that one. Would that be enough to meet notability? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2015 (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. In my judgement, the community is still not in favor of this article's existence. The prose and citations were considerably improved since the last AfD, so this attempt to seek consensus for the article's restoration has certainly been justified. That said, after carefully reading through this debate, as well as several of the earlier discussions, it seems editors are less concerned with the state of the article than with the un/encyclopedic nature of the concept itself. The biggest objection to the article is that it lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times.

At face value, consensus for outright deletion is not overwhelming. Several participants have proposed (or supported, or reiterated their support for) merging the content somewhere, but there's absolutely no agreement as to where that somewhere should be. Indeed, a target in Celibacy—which may seem the obvious choice—has been ruled out by an RfC (with thanks to BusterD for outlining relevant archived discussions, on this AfD's talk page). Without some kind of academic direction as to which "parent" topic this concept belongs to, we run the very real risk of committing harmful original research. The proposals for merge targets (there are several) seem largely backed by personal intuition, with no clear favorite having emerged. With a concept as nebulous as this, we really need reliable sources to endorse a particular association before enacting a merge. I'm certainly not at liberty to choose a merge target, and after years of discussion the community is undecided as ever in that same task.

Opposition to the retention of this article and enduring resistance toward merge proposals combine to yield a consensus that this content does not belong on Wikipedia. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted and has been edited in userspace. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 6 concluded that this version of the article is to be made subject to a normal deletion discussion in order to determine whether it now meets our notability and other inclusion requirements. Please refer also to the previous discussions linked to in the deletion review. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When this was merged with the article on celibacy, important information was lost, repeatedly. Technomad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete as it is a medically misleading neologism masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis. I have also removed a segment that uses MEDMOS noncompliant source to confirm a quasi-psychiatric diagnosis for a near-BLP. More problems to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Drmies, BusterD, and Tarc, I believe a mistake has been made here. Drmies I have reason to believe this is an SPA or Doppelganger account per WP:DUCK. Drmies you may have missed the glaring evidence. The editor has under 50 edit

And we are not using "letters to the editor" to support the definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this ref removed is a film review ?! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Barth source uses the term as "adjective + noun" and is not discussing this condition specifically. This is original research. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a medical article or anywhere close to it. It's a social topic. And like I stated of this deletion by you, "I don't see how WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS apply to the Elliot Rodger material. Also, he is dead, so I don't see how WP:BLP applies. It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) He's very recently dead and has a direct impact on families of living people. Any "condition" we would discuss as a causation of something like mass-murder would be some sort of psychiatric diagnosis, which is squarely in the field of WP:MED. To kill people like that needs some other phenomenon, not this, to explain the lack of empathy and violence, so to ascribe something like celibacy alone to mass murder is just so wrong on so many levels. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that you were talking about his family or his victims, I stated, "It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." As for a medical reason for mass murder, people commit mass murder for various reasons (same goes for plain ole murder), and it's not always classified as medical. Back when this topic was under the Involuntary celibacy Wikipedia title (I mean during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)), it was an issue that required medical sources. Now it barely requires those. It's not a medical topic; the vast majority of it is a social topic, with a few medical instances...such as mention of depression. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, whether we classify Elliot Rodger as a muss murderer or as a spree killer (or both; sources can't make up their minds on that, after all), the Elliot Rodger Wikilink does note his mental health problems; it's likely that people will not think that he went on a killing spree simply because of getting no sex and being lonely. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if we are in agreement that assigning this as a cause for mass murder, then why stick the segment in in the first place with no criticism? Anyway, you have your views and I have mine, may as well see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again misinformed. No serious article would deem it a medical diagnosis but a situation. You are repeating your own false claims back from January 2014. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~Delete~~ (Or Keep with disclaimer as I discussed below.) The opening sentence of our article Celibacy: "Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus") is the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons." My understanding of celibacy has always involved it being a voluntary commitment. (Virginity means you didn't have sex in the past, chastity means you are not having sex now [except with spouse], celibacy means you don't intend to have sex in the future.) At least rename the article to something that makes sense. Borock (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that definition make "involuntary celibacy" an oxymoron? It translates to "involuntarily being in the state of voluntary sexual abstinence." LaMona (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. That's what I was trying to say.Borock (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Involuntary abstinence" would be less bad, although to abstain is also usually a voluntary choice. At least that title would not cause confusion with the primary sense of the word "celibacy" which involves a lifelong commitment based on religious belief. I am aware that our culture, including "reliable sources", sometimes misses this point.Borock (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still The topic itself is original research. The distinction between this and regular celibacy seems to be an artificial one. The previous result of merging with celibacy made the most sense. I don't see any significant changes that address the prior concerns. Chillum 16:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Valoem: has convinced me that reliable sources do indeed cover the topic and that the topic itself is not original research. While it seems like a silly concept to me much akin to just not getting much action it does seem that it is a real concept that has sources on which an article can be based. I appreciate the evidence based argument put forward. I still have concerns that the entirety of the article may not be represented by reliable sources, however that is a matter that editing can fix. Chillum 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is policy based, what I am seeing is a lack of understanding WP:N, WP:NEO, and WP:MEDRS which borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example this source The American Journal of Urology and Sexology published in 1916 clearly distinguishes between voluntary abstinence and involuntary. The subject has been covered for over a century. The concept that an individual desires sex but is unable either due to physical or mental limitations is not fringe nor a neologism. Wikipedia covers such topics as per this discussion Talk:Involuntary celibacy, if title is an issue the subject can always be move involuntary sexual abstinence. As per Jimbo Wales talk page:

"This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc" If I were voting, I would likely vote to keep, but that's not really relevant. There's a confusion I sense here when people discuss WP:MEDRS in this context - it's not a medical term, and not notable for being a medical term, it's a popular term. If the term is notable at all (I don't know for sure but there are some strong initial indicators that it likely is) then it doesn't matter if it is covered in medical journals or academic articles at all. It's something people will want to know about (including, likely, that it is not a term from professional medicine). I see a huge number of uses of the term in perfectly normal mainstream media. It is therefore a term that people are likely to Google. It's our job to answer whatever questions they may have about the term."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Posted from March 16th. WP:MEDRS does not need to apply in this case, nor does WP:NEO. The subject clearly passes WP:N with flying colors. Other editors such as DGG, S Marshall, CorporateM, BDD, and BusterD have shown prior support for this subject. I understand that there are political reasons for keeping this article and those associated with it deleted, however we are confusing the concept of Love-shyness, which is a neologism whose followers may be associated with misogyny and involuntary celibacy, a century old topic with significant coverage and neutrality. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note If anyone views the 30 sources listed we can see that WP:OR does not apply this topic is both academic and historical. The current version for AfD is significantly different from the prior version. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a pretty normal article about a notable subject. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important subject, with multiple aspects; the article needs expansion, not deletion. I have never been able to fathom the reasons for objecting to it. I do not see where MEDRS comes into this at all, nor OR. The sources are sufficient, and many more exist. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete - this issue has been discussed to death, and time and time again the result has been "delete". Even the initial result of 'merge' was a de facto deletion because the editors of the article it was supposed to be merged with (Celibacy) did not want the material to be added. Therein lies the whole problem: even the name, "involuntary celibacy", is an oxymoron as celibacy is a voluntary condition by definition. The name originates from internet forums and is associated with the (now deleted) fictional condition of "Loveshyness". All this is very shady, and very much a fringe theory to my knowledge. The whole concept of there being some sort of condition preventing men from having sex, is ridiculous and close to a conspiracy theory. One of the arguments for the editor who wishes to re-instate the article is that Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the Isla Vista shootings of 2014, believed in the condition and that him believing in the condition of "incel" was mentioned in several news articles. To me, this is not sufficient grounds for an article and I think it's time to give it a rest and respect the outcome of the previous deletion(s) and request of undeletion. Furthermore, I find the previous history of canvassing in order to restore the article and bypass previous decisions (even going as far as to contact Jimbo Wales, per above) is rather disturbing. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed with a clear lack of consensus. Political agenda to keep an article delete is disturbing to say the least. Source provided within the article show very clearly that the concept is real and exists. Each source within this article is a strong as the sources provided in the celibacy article itself. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concensus to keep the article anymore then there is to delete it. However, the previous result of merging it with celibacy failed because editors of the celibacy article reached a consensus, a strong one, that the material ha no place there. Which essentially makes the previous outcome(s) of the deletion and deletion review discussions a de-facto deletion. The sources are, to many, not strong enough to justify an article or even fail to mention "involuntary celibacy" as such. Under the name involuntary sexual abstinence the article would have far more support, possibly enough to justify a re-creation. The fact that you have been accused of canvassing to keep the topic in the past, even going as far as to contact Jimmy Wales to give your case more validity, is worrying for me because you attempted you hardest to involve previously-uninvolved editors in the voting process just for the sake of positively changing the outcome of the deletions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mythic I agree that this topic has no place with the celibacy article. but to accuse me of canvassing violates AGF and unnecessary. There is a difference between asking editors for advice and canvassing. Each editor I asked has a history of disagreeing and most have inputted in this discussion in the past some were members of ARB. Asking the Wales only shows my intention to see if I misinterpreted guidelines and whether or not the friction against this topic is valid. In specific circumstances such as this when there is a great deal of IDL bias it seemed a reasonable judgement. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a topic that has never had consensus to exist as a standalone topic, and the folks at celibacy don't wany it there either. A single, vested editor who refused to drop the stick continues to synthesize old, disparate sources about celibacy to support the modern fringe neologism that is "incel", also known as "love shyness". It just junk science that doesn't exist outside of obscure discussion boards; never has, and likely never will. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An existing article should be kept unless there is a consensus to remove it, which there never was for this article. Also, your persistent, dishonest attempts to associate involuntary celibacy with the discredited love-shyness article are noted. The two concepts are distinct, and having an article on one does not require having an article on the other. 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: One argument has been to merge this topic with the Sexual abstinence article; and, given that a WP:Alternative title for this topic is "involuntary sexual abstinence," and that sexual abstinence can be involuntary (as currently noted in the lead of the Sexual abstinence article), and that this content keeps getting rejected at the Celibacy article, this merge option has seemed like a good compromise to me for a while now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 what is your input here? We have plenty of headcount. Tarc, Mythic, and Liber were the original group that voted against the retention of this article it is no surprise that their views have not changed. The claims that this is not science cannot be further from the truth. They want their views to prevail regardless of its validity and this is in essence problematic to the encyclopedia. I am against a merge, but am willing to compromise on the title. Involuntary sexual abstinence is fine by me. We can move forward with this. I implore anyone to study the sources provided and compare them with the sources provided in the article of celibacy or celibacy syndrome. They are equally strong if not stronger. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My input is generally the same as it was before. I don't see why this topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia, considering that it has WP:Reliable sources to support it and it's not WP:Fringe to the point that we shouldn't cover it. But whereas before I was more open to this topic being its own Wikipedia article (though I preferred it be merged even then), I'm now less open to that idea. I don't see why this topic needs its own Wikipedia article when it can simply be covered at the Sexual abstinence article. I don't like unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, the addition of a few more sources directly from the bottom of the barrel doesn't change my opinion from last time around. I mean, trying to use a film review as an actual serious reference on a subject like this? Absolutely preposterous, as is the article itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment No guideline on Wikipedia says if the concept has been covered in film review delete the subject. We simply cannot ignore the solid sources provided. Cunard has a method of posting cited sources which has been helpful in the past. However, some of these sources are so old that a copy paste isn't so simply. The first source:

- Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.

"We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence, to take the latter first, results in causes beyond the individual's control."

The book than proceeds to specify two pages regarding the subject.

- Denis L Meadows (1973). The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Darmouth College.

Source covers the topic academically and published in 1973.

- Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.

Published in 2001 covers the topic based on reasons for involuntary celibacy including skewed sex ratio.

These are three of the hundreds of "serious" sources which exist. Finding one questionable sources does not nullify the validity of these. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that such questionable sources are being used to demonstrate notability just underscores how flimsy the argument that this is a "real thing" is. The film review does not discuss the subject in detail, it's just a mere mention of the two words, shrouded in scare quotes because it's such an absurd concept. Using this logic, I could write an article on "silver car" because there are "hundreds of serious sources" that mention those two words next to each other. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Merge into celibacy perhaps. I'm confused. Involuntary celibacy seems to be an oxymoron of sorts. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. "Involuntary celibacy" is not a type of celibacy, by the definition given in that article. To that, I would prefer keeping this article as it is, perhaps with some kind of note explaining the difference between the neologism and the actual meaning of the two words. Borock (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The OED tells us that celibacy just means "The state of living unmarried" and so the assertions above that the title in question is an oxymoron are false. A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. It's a shame that the topic has been disrupted by recentism but so it goes. Deletion is not acceptable because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson (Andrew D.), celibacy clearly does not only mean "The state of living unmarried." As noted in the Celibacy article, with WP:Reliable sources supporting it, celibacy also means "abstention from sexual activity" (more so voluntary abstention) and is commonly understood to mean only that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OED is the "definitive record of the English language" and its definition is as stated, with no alternative. My impression is that people are confusing celibacy with chastity, perhaps because they both begin and end with the same letters. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the real world different groups use different meanings for the same word. While the meaning I grew up with implies that it is voluntary it has been demonstrated that this is not the only meaning. As silly as it seems to me there are significant sources backing up this topic. Chillum 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. I can picture that a vow of celibacy (in the context of the Catholic Church on which I am not an expert, or even a member) originally meant a vow not to marry. That would mean that for that person any sexual relations would be considered sinful. And to the modern imagination the sex part seems more important than the marriage part. Borock (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW when a married couple decides not to have sex for a certain period of time that is called "abstinence" not "celibacy." Borock (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borock and Andrew Davidson (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion, Andrew Davidson, because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), people are not confusing celibacy with chastity; they are going by the WP:Reliable sources on this topic, including other dictionaries, encyclopedias and other scholarly sources. And it's quite clear from looking at the literature on celibacy that it is not solely defined as "The state of living unmarried"; it is quite clear that it also means "abstention from sexual activity," and that the definition of celibacy evolved. So whether the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the "definitive record of the English language" or not, we do not adhere solely to what it states for matters like this. Nor should we. But while we're on the subject of Oxford, OxfordDictionaries.com (like the OED) is also published by Oxford University Press, and it states, "Abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons: a celibate priest. Having or involving no sexual relations. A person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations." I also find it hard to believe that no version of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the alternate "abstention from sexual activity" definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)The[reply]

Be that as it may, the title in question is still not an oxymoron. The important source here is the one which demonstrates the notability of the topic. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely important and relevant subject, not to be claimed as an actual disease but a situation like poverty or homelessness. The agenda to delete is coming from various "troll" groups online designed to harass people, like this one https://kiwifar.ms/threads/incels-trying-to-abuse-wikipedia.11737/ Also, claims like that it is not notable or hasn't seen enough use in science are bullshit. An article on something like the friendzone had been around for many years now. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Andrey Rublyov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )

Delete This topic has been discussed to death multiple times and should be put to an end once and for all. Involuntary celibacy is not considered a valid condition, and is only accepted by an ever decreasing fringe community on the internet. It is not accepted by any legitimate academic or scientific institute, and is unlikely to be at any point in the near future. Not being able to get yourself a sexual partner is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Stop acting like it is. The One True Incel (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— The One True Incel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Where in the article is the term "masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis"? Do you also advocate deleting the article on homelessness? 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"homelessness" isn't a neologism, nor is anyone trying to make it something it isn't. Cas Liber (talk

It is doubtful if involuntary celibacy is still a neologism, given its vast use recently and in some scientific publications. That being said, terms like friendzone or red pill are also neologisms and have their articles. Here is a clear case of somebody running a malicious ideological agenda for years. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

· contribs) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor above (2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB) is the same person as Andrey Rublyov, who is a sockpuppet of MalleusMaleficarum1486, an editor previous banned for disrupting older debates on the 'involuntary celibacy' article. Libercht (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple IP check will show it is not the same person at all. Here is another example of a malicious agenda that has nothing to do with actual rational arguments but ideology, same as the one presented by Mythical Overlord. Also, note that this person had already been warned for personal attacks and is trying to obfuscate the fact on their Talk page. In fact, an IP check to that might show that the actual sockpuppet is Librecht, who is in fact Mythical Writerlord.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: to avoid sockpuppetry and canvassing problems and controversies, I'm now limiting editing of this page to autoconfirmed editors (WP:CONFIRM). Sandstein 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the protestations of those who wished to keep this off of the Celibacy page (which I agree is a poor place to merge such material, User:Coffee's extremely well-explained close in the 2nd AFD notwithstanding), this material is about an important topic, about a social condition (Donnelly is a professor of sociology, not medicine or psychiatry) affecting virtually every human being on the planet at some point or other, ranging from pre-sexual teens to eunuchs to prison populations to residents of the assisted living community. I'm baffled why such strong and pejorative statements have been made in the processes closed as opposing restoration to pagespace. The subject clearly meets GNG in presented sources, has been mentioned and defined specifically in medical texts for a hundred years and while some sources which appeared in the page at the beginning of this process have been properly removed, in its present state the page is adequately referenced and in no way resembles the version previously put up for deletion. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no policy based reason to delete this. The sources seem to me to pass the WP:GNG. A rename might be an improvement, but that is not an issue for AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with relisting]Comment. I take issue with much of the argument which has been offered by the delete side in this process:

1. The assertion this subject has been discussed to death is hyperbolic and doesn't jibe with the total of three deletion procedures directly concerning this subject. Writerlord's statement "time and time again the result has been "'delete'" is factually incorrect. The page has never been deleted in an AfD; instead the page has not until recently garnered sufficient consensus to have been allowed to be recreated in mainspace because of mixed and largely inconclusive DRV procedures after a failed but well-intentioned merge. We don't "give it a rest" or "drop the stick" unless the horse is well and truly beaten. We don't normally salt namespace which has never before been deleted. This process is the first true measure of consensus allowing presented sources; this was the version when User:Coffee closed the last process as merge; this is the version User:Sandstein restored to mainspace prior to the commencement of this process. There's no comparison between them.

2. It's also factually untrue the subject draws all significance from recent internet activity. Valoem has presented adequate sources that the subject was discussed in medical literature 99 years ago and that numerous authors—notably Abbott and Bouchez but including the scholarly sociological studies of Donnelly et al.—have defined and explored the subject as "involuntary celibacy" in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.

3. It's a ridiculous assertion that MEDRS-level sourcing must be applied to this page in order to anchor notability; that standard has been applied neither to Celibacy nor Sexual abstinence (the two most likely merge targets). On the other hand, User:Casliber was quite correct in removing several sources early in this process, especially those non-MEDRS compliant sources which did seem to make medical claims.

4. Finally, a lot of negativity has been made of the determined efforts of Valoem to restore this to mainspace. That editor in his stridency may have made some missteps along the way, but to accuse that editor repeatedly of canvassing without offering a single diff is clearly a personal attack and we should stop that right here and now. (For his part, Jimbo has always made it clear his user talk page is available for discussion of reasonable topics.) As far as I'm concerned, Valoem has performed an astounding page rescue in the face of stout opposition, transforming drek into valuable and well-anchored pagespace, even getting encouragement from Wikipedia's founder and several prior opponents along the way. I have nothing but respect for those asserting delete in this process, but I disagree with them in this case. I'd just like to see them mount stronger arguments. BusterD (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This should be a talk page discussion about appropriate content, not a deletion discussion about the topic. Clearly passes WP:GNG. I did NOT search Google News or Search, and instead found this in Google Books and this in Google Scholar.--TTTommy111 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Casliber, as medically misleading neologism masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis. Also I would like to know what the previous admins who agreed on re-listing, Drmies and Coffee it would say about this new admin-shopping. Also WP:Disruptive editing. And there was an other heated discussion here: Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD wherever that disappeared, this is not third, but fourth or fight, considering all the efforts around the Denise Donnelly article too, and the Requests for comment on the Celibacy talk page plus some other efforts. Previously socking was involved too, and I suspect some of the votes here fall under Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts Wikipedia:Single-purpose account too - sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also - there were several other discussions involved, this topic is like a long long spaghetti, it never ends, and it is disruptive per Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point,:

1) One more previous discussion: AND WHERE IS THIS LISTED? Why isn't this discussion not listed? Just because it was in a userspace? And who is User:Gabepage, when the discussion was initiate in User:Valoem 's userpage? And I can notice Valoem arguing and editing above.

2) There was another discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Lg/2014_May_28#involuntary_celibacy on the very same topic.

3) There was this too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Involuntary_celibacy. The above page is a redirect to actual discussion'. Hafspajen (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do take some deep breaths, Hafspajen. Why are you shouting? As plainly linked in Sandstein's opening statement, he concluded a DRV as restoring to mainspace and immediately listing at AFD. What a surprise that Valoem, who (along with almost a dozen other editors) was unhappy with the unclear outcome at the last DRV, put forward a new one several months later, as he said he would. All the prior processes are listed somewhere in either this discussion or the DRV. For the record User:Gabepage is an unrelated DRV issue which happens to appear on the same date as one of the DRVs. OK? The "missing" User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfD is on the mainspace talkpage, just as someone might expect it would be after Sandstein's announced move to mainspace. Previous DRVs don't have much relevance to this discussion; we're having a fresh discussion on the merits of this issue. Please tell me you will make better arguments than "why didn't the nominator ping every person ever associated with this subject and link every discussion involving this subject?" BusterD (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am shouting as much as I want, thank you. This topic has been dragged and chewed and re-discussed countless times, not ONLY THREE times as the above title might suggest. It's like a bad penny, you can't get rid of it, and it's the same editor always, it is a tremendous waste of time with everybodies time and energy and it is simply DISRUPTIVE. I am not telling anything anymore, please all READ the previous discussions. Right here above, not only the ones linked on the top of the page. I am TIRED about saying the same things all over again, I have repeated these arguments like on 8 different places already. (Ten according to latest counting). We're not having a fresh discussion on the merits of this issue, we are having the tenth discussion on this topic in a year's time. It is disruptive. Maybe I can add one more thing: men who think they have a right to sex need to wake up and realize women are people too and get to decide for themselves. Hafspajen (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we are here to consider the merits of the article, not the merits of the previous discussions of the article. If debating the deletion of this article is "disruptive", such disruption only happens when there are editors strongly wanting to delete, as well as other editors strongly wanting the article kept. I have read the previous discussion, and I haven't seen policy-based reasons to delete this article. Others clearly disagree with me on that point. But "It is disruptive" is not a valid reason to delete anything. As to "...men who think they have a right to sex need to wake up and realize women are people too..." that isn't the point here. Murder is horrific. Rape is horrific. We have articles about both, because they occur in the real world and have been reported on by reliable sources. If there are people unable to have sex for psychological or social reasons, or indeed for whatever reasons, and there are reliable sources reporting on this, then it is reasonable that we have an article about this, too. Wikipedia is not the place toi improve the world, except insofar as having access to high-quality information improves the world. Now, if anyone has specific policy-based reasons why this article should, or should not, be deleted, by all means present them. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, how many times? 20 December 2006, that was the first. Since then it was brought up 16 January 2014; 9 April 2014;, 19 March 2015; 2014 May 28; , 4 June 2014;‎ 7 December 2014; and here we go again.

MOS:NEO. Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. ... Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last.

Wikipedia:Notability : "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
WP:NRV. "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page. - Also, sources should be secondary sources, multiple sources are generally expected.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not# Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.
The author that the main coverage is based on, Denise Donnelly was deleted because of the lack of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
And generally the term is uncertain, badly defined and most often used in a New Age context and lacks encyclopedic coverage. Hafspajen (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge into men's rights movement. not an actual thing, but a common claimed grievance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article text has noting to do with the so-called "men's rights movement" or indeed any particular movement. It also does not say this is something that affects only men. If we try such a merge the editors of the target article will rightly remove all such content as irrelevant. This will result in a backdoor deletion, much as happened with the "merge" into the Celibacy article, and will only be inviting another round of debate just as the former merge did. That would not be helpful. We should either keep this article or delete it, not try half-way measures, in my view. Please don't propose a merge unless the content would actually fit into the merge target. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, failing that, merge into celibacy. The term itself is a neologism, but the current article reads as an essay by a user, assembling every source which uses the words 'involuntary' and 'celibacy' together to give the artificial appearance that the term has academic meaning. Attaching eg. Theodore Parker's usage of the words to an essay that contains a 'contributing factors' section using Denise Donnelly's WP:FRINGE opinions on the neologism itself as if they were talking about the same thing is WP:OR; and the entire article is essentially composed of such things. The few meaningful sentences that could be parsed out ("sometimes people are celibate involuntarily") belong in celibacy and are not sufficient to support an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, not in the celibacy! The whole talk page is full of protests against that... I often suggested sexual frustration instead... and still would be happy with it is a neutral formulation can be achieved. I am afraid that the user who is pushing for this wants THIS article, and nothing else, that was my experience in the last .... like five discussions. Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with Hafspajen's Whoa! A merge to Celibacy would be the worst possible outcome of this AFD. A merge to Sexual abstinence would be far more preferable, if this process doesn't close as keep. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A merge to sexual frustration would also be fine; in any case, the number of reasonable places to merge this shows, I think, its lack of any unique noteworthy content. There's no concrete topic here, so I'd be fine with a merge to just about anywhere as long as we avoid using involuntary celibacy or similar neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 11:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to a merge with sexual frustration too, per reasons stated above by Aquillion and Hafspajen. It's been twelve days since this article was (again) nominated for deletion. While I still lean heavily towards a deletion, I would not mind a mention of the 'incel' phenomenon on the sexual frustration page. If a compromise is what it takes to close this situation and put an end to the endless rehashing of the same old arguments, I am willing to make such a compromise. Delete, then mention under the name involuntary abstinence in sexual frustration. The AfD has been up for twelve days now, with 10 editors in favor of deletion, eight in favor of keeping and five in favor of a merge, I think this is as close as we're going to get to a workable, reasonable solution. Enough is enough. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. --Holdek (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent an hour or so pulling together all the links of previous discussions (at least all the formal processes); I took the liberty of linking each participant by assertion and did a head count for reference only. This is on the talk page of this process. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I was stating before that I am NOT against merging IN AN OTHER article. I said that all the time. What is confusing that the people starting this process all over again, (and I believe is that sockpupets are involved), that it is aiming for using the word Incel. I can't say I like socking, is kinda dishonest. But apart from that, the word and concept is a neologism standing on wobbling feet, and it can't be merged in celibacy if were not going to ... change the world, in that meaning that the article creators are exactly going for, to popularize the new concept. We must be careful with this. I was proposing a very carefully formulated fusion time to time into sexual frustration witch is an article that has two lines, but .... they are not interested. It boils down to uncertain sources and a certain wish to have an article on the very concept, but as it is now it is not very different from as it was before. I am familiar with the philosophy of Carl Bart (he is not a physician nor a sexologist)and that already is an incorrect start. Somebody tagged that ^{Original research} (not me) and yes, it is original research. The definition: Involuntary celibacy can occur within marriages that's all wrong too, per definition, I mean one can't write an article like this. WP:COMPETENCE, I really mean it. Hafspajen (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafspajen, the issues you have listed are all resolved in the version I am requesting to be restored. I posted three sources which alone provide evidence the subject has had over a century of coverage. What you are suggesting is that sources cannot prove the notability of this subject which is against the pillars of this encyclopedia. There is no appropriate merge target, I do not mind a rename to Involuntary sexual abstinence though. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Just read these issues here Involuntary celibacy. Involuntary sexual abstinence is fine with me but it must be reformulate in a neutral way. And how are you resolve the issues with your sources? They call it Incel. Hafspajen (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot deny these sources:

Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.

"We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence, to take the latter first, results in causes beyond the individual's control."

The book than proceeds to specify two pages regarding the subject.

Denis L Meadows (1973). The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Darmouth College.

Source covers the topic academically and published in 1973.

Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.

Published in 2001 covers the topic based on reasons forincluding skewed sex ratio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valoem (talk • contribs)

Comment About your sources, Valoem:

Elisabet Abbott (2001) is pointing out herself that she is not using the term celibacy as it is used in its general meaning. You cited Abbott, Elizabeth. But her view is very differs from the mainstream definition, 'as she stated that herself: (page 16-17) : I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow . Well, if she is using it that way, and you are using it that way, than you must use that info with precision. Beware, we not writing a book or an essay or a novel, we write an encyclopedia, and people who look up the information must find a correct and reliable information.
About the part "We may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence, so far so good. But it doesn't state that it is called: involuntary celibacy though.
- About Denis L Meadows, the book is about pollution, enviroment, it's effect of human beings, and environmental policy, and such, how is this connected?
And finally Barth is a protestant theologian, and protestant priest may marry and generally they are are married. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept incel is associated with love-shyness which as far as I can tell is fringe, however the concept involuntary celibacy/involuntary sexual abstinence existed long before the recent misogynist push associated with love-shyness. As long as everyone is aware the article I am restoring predates the fringe concept some have been confused with. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valoem, if, as your source says, "We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence", I'd expect you to start a rename discussion for Abstinence--or, of course, you could just merge this material into a one- or two-paragraph section in that article. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough sources for a standalone article I only listed three. I am against any type of merge and renaming is an argument for clean up not deletion. There are several more recent sources which use the term involuntary celibacy instead of abstinence so WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should be listing the article title as such but the opening sentence as involuntary sexual abstinence. I am not sure though that is up to others to decide, the first goal is of course to restore the subject matter. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did noticed that your first aim is to restore the subject matter. But it's very vaguely reinforced and it seems to me that you are really trying to restore this article time to time, but are not villing to lidte to anybody. <It is exactly the sanme article, almost exactly same sources and you are per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - not listening at all. And by the record we were discussing these points ten times by now, on various pages. Hafspajen (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was in favor of retaining, but closed incorrectly. There was tons of support for this subject in each debate and the sources were deemed sufficient. There continues to be support to consider proper channels of discussion such as DRV disruptive is a sign of bad faith. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your last sentence, but I will tell you that if an article has been deleted so many times, and been up for DRV, it's a pretty good sign that it's not encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either sexual abstinence or sexual frustration, with preference to the latter, or delete. Definitely do not keep under its current name. The subject matter has been reviewed before and deemed unfit to have its own standalone article. Original resource and slapping together a bunch of unrelated sources for the sake of retaining it, reeks of original research. Furthermore, previous association with the term loveshyness and questionable sources such as Brian G. Gilmartin, are not at all helpful. The difficulty the editor seeking to restore the page has gone through in order to source the article, using sources that do not even describe the condition using the name "involuntary celibacy" he insists on using, still make me fear the matter may be WP:Fringe. I am hesistant but open to describing the concept described in the article on Wikipedia, but properly sourced under a more fitting name and preferably as a part of a pre-existing article by means of a merge. The previous version of the article was rightfully deleted and until significant improvement is made in more areas, the outcome should remain deletion. Libercht (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to Sexual abstinence or something like that. I am not convinced that this is a standalone topic. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies As an administrator you know better obvious spa barely any edits in the mainspace removing this is ill advised. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed it, as Drmies' judgement all-around in this project is quite sound. If you insist on labeling Libercht as a single-purpose account, then I will see to it that Mr. "Andrey Rublyov"...who edits extremely sporadically and primarily shows up to contest this specific topic...is tagged as such as well. We're going to apply SPA tags evenly here, or not at all. Your choice. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal. You know what is ill-advised, User:Valoem? Edit warring with a respected admin you disagree with on the merits in a formal deletion procedure over a single purpose user tag. I've rarely seen such rash behavior. I try not to judge my fellow wikipedians, but I think the action of reinserting a spa tag is foolish and doesn't reflect well on the person doing it. We have a hard enough time building consensus on this issue without pissing decent people off. For the record, one of the issues I noticed when compiling the list of procedures on talk was the dearth of spa action in these processes, when ips and SPAs seem to flutter all over AFDs as a rule these days. As someone who has largely supported Valoem on the merits here, I encourage that user to stop shooting himself in the foot. BusterD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review his edit history has less edits than Rublyov who I agree is an SPA. If he is a banned editor his comment should be removed I am see a double standard please advise me if I am incorrect. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The account is four years old, so it obviously wasn't created for this AfD. They've edited oddly, perhaps (and problematically, as those with admin glasses can confirm), but not in this specific area. So it's quite obvious that, even though you may find it odd that they come popping by to edit this AfD, they are not a single purpose account, and that's really all there is to it. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I do edit extremely sporadically my account isn't a SPA by any means. On the other hand, somebody like Tarc is extremely interested in removing this topic while making "brilliant" arguments like these romantic-sexual deprivations are like him not being tall enough to play basketball. I am sorry if such level of irrational is more respected than my inputs due to number of his edits. Besides, I have already proven the obvious bias and agenda behind every removal attempt, and bits of this even got the sane administrators worried before, but it had always been eventually pushed aside by screeching trolls with an agenda. The whole Mythical Writerlord person is somebody who had been harassing people from sites devoted to these issues for years and I linked to a thread on a notorious abuser forum where he even details the story. It's just that unreasonable people with an agenda want to push that aside. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have policies in place to help us decide whether or not a topic is notable for inclusion. You, however, do not argue on this basis, but rather on a personal "because I like it and know about it" argument. The Wikipedia takes a dim view to organized, off-site collusion to push narrow agendas, and it is more than curious thing that you conveniently show up here whenever the matter is up for debate or deletion, along with others like "Technomad", who had not edited since 2013, and participated in one incel discussion in 2012. Very curious how you all know just when to show up... Tarc (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~This topic is already mentioned in the lead of sexual abstinence, and~~ some of this material could probably be merged ~~there~~^{--Holdek (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)} to sexual frustration (perhaps as a paragraph or so because a full scale merge would violate WP:Fringe). But having stand-alone article about this is definitely WP:Fringe and also violates WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Neologisms_and_new_compounds. --Holdek (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies:, I can't help but noticed you might have made a mistake here by removing the SPA tag from Libercht. I understand that the account has been created in 2011, but so has Andrey Rublyov who has done more editing than Libercht. Libercht has under 50 edits, few of which are in the mainspace, so to tag him is not unreasonable. However evidence shows that this editor is acting in the capacity of not here to build an encyclopedia. With barely any edits, his first few edits in years include attacks on the account Andrey Rublyov and an IP. He tagged them as SPAs here without doing any research. He did not do any IP checks which need to be done before accusing, so this of course is unusual. I allowed those tags to stand because I did not research him, later his behavior appeared to meet WP:DUCK, he is here to removed this subject regardless of its validity. I hope you agree and retag him or removed the tag from Rublyov. I would also like to hear whether BusterD and Tarc finds this reasonable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given your singular, bordering on zealous, insistence that this artificially-concocted, non-notable fringe subject matter be jammed into mainspace by hook or by crook, I'd say you're veering closer to WP:NOTHERE than anyone else. Chillax, stop thwacking everyone involved, and let the chips fall where they may. Tarc (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that there is tons of support and I went through the proper channels I would say this is hardly the case. Tagging legitimate editors as SPAs when favoring retention of the article and then removing SPA tags from those opposed is hardly "letting the chips fall where they may", its rather unbecoming isn't it? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have only tagged one super-obvious IP who did not say anything worth replying to. Tarc (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about you, I am talking about Libercht. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dark road to go down when we're starting to characterize users instead of issues. We have a discussion about the topic, I suggest we stick to that. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sexual frustration. I'll note that while involuntary sexual abstinence is mentioned at sexual abstinence, it's just tacked into the lead with no source (so, like celibacy, would be a dubious target -- although marginally better than the present title). Based on the contexts in which this neologism is used, sexual frustration is the clear choice as being nearly synonymous. That there are sources which combine the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" does not mean there is a distinct concept that merits a stand-alone article. In order to have a stand-alone article, it must be a concept we don't already cover elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that merge targets are difficult here, as proved by the previous failed merge to Celibacy. I would argue this is one reason to keep, as opposed to merge towards unsatisfactory targets. Clearly Celibacy is a non-starter. I believe that based on sources presented, sexual frustration might follow from an inability to gain sexual satisfaction, but the inability to gain sexual satisfaction through no choice of one's own (and here I'm referring to eunuchs, the very young, the very old, and the incarcerated) is a topic all its own. The topic involuntary celibacy (for lack of a superior term) is a social state common to all human beings at some point in their lives (so say the sources); sexual frustration is merely one possible outcome, IMHO. Based on sources, common name seems to indicate that this namespace is the most appropriate place. BusterD (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe that based on sources presented, sexual frustration might follow from an inability to gain sexual satisfaction, but the inability to gain sexual satisfaction through no choice of one's own (and here I'm referring to eunuchs, the very young, the very old, and the incarcerated) is a topic all its own" - So your distinction between sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy is that the latter "is through no choice of one's own"? ...So sexual frustration would therefore have to be by choice? When is "inability" ever about choice? It sure seems like you're arguing for a concept already touched upon (and which could be expanded upon) elsewhere, not an article about this term. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging. The distinction I was trying to raise was that involuntary celibacy was a social state involving many different kinds of human situations. Some of those so affected may experience the physical state of sexual frustration. IMHO, and based on the readings, sexual frustration isn't a social state, it's a physical and psychological state which might be measured. Some experiencing IC may not experience SF, and for that reason I thought your offered merge target might not be the best one. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do that. This topic is like an ugly baby that keeps getting left on everyone's doorstep; no one wants it and it is unable to live on its own. An XfD can have a consensus of "merge to X", but that finding cannot overrule normal editing processes in Article X if editors there have a consensus to not include the material. That's the conundrum we're in, and rolling back to a "keep because of lack of a merge target" is completely unacceptable, as there has been no consensus found to keep. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just like there's never been consensus to delete, only an RFC which excluded a merge. We keep discussing these things until we have resolution. If my argument was "keep because of lack of a merge target" I'd be totally wrong. Instead my argument is "this is a topic significantly covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, plus there's no clear merge target." When backed up by sourcing and other editors (62 keep or restore !votes by headcount only), my argument is sound. To milk your metaphor: Is your opinion that ugly babies don't deserve love or a place to live? That's the very definition of a "I don't like it" argument. In my culture such a child is placed in a safe location and they prosecute those who abandon them. BusterD (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, substitute "stray dog" if it makes you feel better. :) No one wants the mangy mutt, that doesn't mean I have to be the one to make a home for it. Consensus of the various discussions has consistently been against a standalone article, that's the simple fact here. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentArguments about the term not being sufficiently used in scientific research being in itself enough for it to not have an article are extremely poor. Wikipedia has had articles about things like "Friend zone" for years. Basic online search would show that the term as it proposed now ("Involuntary celibacy") will score a huge number of hits. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF & WP:GOOGLEHITS, i.e. not valid arguments to retain or delete an article. Anyone is free to nominate friend zone for deletion if they so desire. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to sexual frustration... there's a huge set of arguments that have been made, and rehashing them doesn't do that much good. Yet it seems clear the general topic being discussed-- the inability of someone to experience sexual satisfaction due to some severe problem or set of severe problems, whether it's a result of child sexual abuse and/or gender dysphoria and/or total body dysphoria and/or strong physical disability and/or whatever else-- is a real thing that's not some random internet meme. It's been covered by reliable sources for decades. For Pete's sake, just pick up any random scientific literature written about transpeople and read some of the material ('Patient X so hates her physical appearance that she showers only at night, with the lights off, and experiences heightened anxiety when her partner touches her waist area' and such). If we're getting hung up over the name "involuntary celibacy" (and I do see problems with it), than I recommend changing it to "involuntary abstinence"... which is another form of sexual frustration anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual frustration is a completely different topic from involuntary celibacy. One can by sexually active and still frustrated. Involuntary celibacy is defined as the lack sexual activity for involuntary reasons. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all subsets do not need to overlap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's as said above by TRPoD. They're not "completely different" topics. One of them is, generally speaking, a subset of the other. It's as simple as how the Christian socialist movement is an outgrowth of the broader concept of Christianity, even if many individuals in the broader group are not a part of the smaller subgroup. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just to note, this version has never been subjected to an AfD. The only possible merge target is sexual abstinence, even that merge questionable. Involuntary celibacy has been defined over and over again for over a century as a specific and notable subset of sexual abstinence. Involuntary abstinence is an outdated term, but coverage of the concept has been documented since the 1916 sexology study performed by Henry G. Spooner. Source provided (there are many more) have already shown that this concept is notable. It passes GNG with flying colors. WP:NEO does not apply as the term has been covered significantly in secondary reliable and academic sources. WP:MEDRS needs not apply either as this is a social condition not a medical one. Deleting the subject would suggest that sources do not establish notability which against the very guidelines we sought to achieve. What we have here is a subject which suffers from recentism, editors are confusing the fringe concept of love-shyness with involuntary celibacy. I agree that love-shyness has misogynistic undertones, but that is not the academic topic of involuntary celibacy we are trying to restore. Denise Donnelly pass WP:PROF and should have never been deleted. All these errors can be corrected. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not "errors", those discussion outcomes are the result of the consensus of Wikipedia editors. That you remain on the outside of that consensus is understandably frustrating, but disagreeing with an outcome does not mean it was erroneous. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion and those prior it is clear that no consensus has ever been established. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're still discussing this due to a disinclination to relinquish the wooden instrument. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (as, like a very small sub-section, or even just a couple of sentences) into Celibacy. The problem here is that there are some sources that talk about "involuntary celibacy" as a serious subject - but they do so in a very different context, and in a very different sense, than how most people on the internet are talking about "involuntary celibacy" these days. As a result, this article appears to legitimate and recognize a somewhat different kind of concept of "involuntary celibacy" that is really not notable, well-documented, or encyclopedia worthy. If it stands, this article will be forever in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK. More generally, the sourcing for this article is ... weird. It really looks like someone cobbled together every possible source they could find that uses the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together, without really assessing their quality/relevance, or looking to see if they're actually talking about a single, distinct concept. The serious, legit sources that discuss "involuntary celibacy" make it abundantly clear that they're doing so as part of a broader discussion of celibacy in general. We follow the RS here, and therefore that's where this content belongs, in Celibacy. Again, as a brief discussion, which cites and is based on only the most high-quality, academic sources that are cited here. Anything more than that is undue weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect there are tons of sources if you could breakdown each of the 25 sources cited and determine why they amount to undue weight then I would gladly change my opinion. The sourcing in this article is as abundant and reliable as the sources found in the article celibacy. There are two completely different concepts. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge rape with sex as well? Contains roughly the same logic. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Tarc (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?--Holdek (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rublyov comments are not helpful nor do long standing editor agree with such comments, but agree that sources do show this subject is notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per nom and several other editors, particularly Hafspajen, Fyddlestix, Tarc, and Aquillion (but not into celibacy, either into Sexual frustration or Sexual abstinence). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:36, 28 August 2015 (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.