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 03:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sain (musician)[edit]

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

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

Non notable musician. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable source about this guy. 和DITOREtails 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this musician. According to the articel, all of his work has been released through 3Bass Records which appears to be his own company based on looking at http://www.3bass.com/ which has no other artists listed. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete no reliable sources found that prove notability. Page created by a WP:SPA who appears to also be the subject. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 30 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) Kraxler (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Coupe Banque Nationale[edit]

2015 Coupe Banque Nationale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTAL violations, TBA and TBD etc. Only source provided is by the event itself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can understand when someone creates an event when it's a year away... but this is less than 3 weeks from starting and we already have some of the seeds listed. I don't think it's that unusual for the tournament info to start getting filled in already. Heck the 2015 US Open started getting filled in on June 3, 2015. It starts next week, so it was 3 months beforehand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the preceding comment, it's pretty standard for tennis tournament information to be filled in on a rolling basis as information becomes available closer to the event. If the page is deleted now, it will just have to be recreated in substantially the same form in a couple of weeks. Yimingbao (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting this article now serves no practical purpose. Per previous comments, it is common to create a tennis tournament edition article some time in advance as information (players, withdrawals, prize money, etc.) becomes available. That the article has only one source at the moment is not a valid reason for a deletion.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  According to WP:RS and WP:GNG it is. The source needs to show notability seperate from the subject. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. GNG is a guideline that "is best treated with common sense." This 2015 event is also talked about at the WTA website and in Quebec guides. A month out is pretty reasonable for concerts and tournaments. Heck, we already have a 2024 Olympic article, a June 2016 concert tour for an italian singer and a 2016 hockey game. Sure this event is smaller than the hockey game (but not the singer) but I'd cut it some slack 3 weeks out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Other stuff existing is not a valid rationale. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid it is when it shows that it is common wikipedia consensus that events such as this are usually wiki-articles long before the actual event takes place. It's simply a question on what is a reasonable time frame, and I think 3 weeks is easily in the ballpark. 2015 Tour of Flanders for Women article started more than a month before the race, Maroon 5 World Tour 2015 article started 5 months before the tour, 2016 Democratic National Convention is not till next July but we have an article on it. I'm not passing judgement on whether those articles should exist or not, but when we have a tennis tournament that's only 3 weeks away it seems wp:pointy to complain about the article being created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry I checked out when you kept citing WP:OTHERCRAP again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others. And with respect to having to meet meet independent notability, applying some common sense to the situation would lead me to believe that notability won't be an issue when we have a series of articles for prior year instances of this tournament. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 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. Michig (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Certified Background Investigators[edit]

Association of Certified Background Investigators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization founded within the past ten years with my searches finding absolutely nothing and the best results being here. This is an article by a now long-time retired user and there has never been any improvement since inception in January 2008 (and hasn't even been edited since December 2009) and with no signs of it, there's nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches revealed no RS to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this organisation, only listing entries in which they are one of several such similar organisations. For example [1], [2], and [3]. - Whpq (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Only finding passing mentions, such as [4], [5]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 31 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 Immigration to France#Ethnic groups. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian migration to France[edit]

Scandinavian migration to France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this a viable topic??? Not really sure, so I will go with a weak delete at the moment. Safiel (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had propsed a speedy deletion per the A3 criteria. There is no content apart from a title tautology. Lappspira (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This started out as a copy of Scandinavian migration to Britain, with several key words changed. While the subject is no doubt notable, there is essentially no content here after I removed the material about the UK, so I feel deletion is the best option no, with no prejudice against future recreation once someone writes an actual article. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: for now to Immigration to France#Ethnic groups, it's a plausible search term. If someone gets motivated to write a proper article they can undo the redirect. Vrac (talk) 14:57, 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. Michig (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Teate[edit]

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

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia yet. Claims to have been in Wolfblood, etc., but not listed as a significant character of the show. Is not well-known enough as an actress to be on Wikipedia - seems more like promotion. Sheroddy (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nominator's assertion that she is not notable I agree with. Despite these [6] [7], which are mentions and not really in depth, there really isn't anything accept credits (IMDb, etc.).--TTTommy111 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as non-notable actress; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now as although I would've suggesting redirecting to Wolfblood which has a little over 30 episodes and it seems the show was renewed for another season suggesting more appearances, essentially there's not much and it's probably better to delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Might be notable in the future if she gets more roles--per SwisterTwister, redirect to Wolfblood might be nice for now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:10, 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.  Sandstein  17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Bad: Greatest Hits[edit]

It's All Bad: Greatest Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that this is a notable album. Also, there could be nothing else about this album, since I can't find such sources as even shopping pages with this album and there's no entry about it in Discogs [8], although possibly not all of Big Lurch's discography is there. TheGGoose (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does not appear notable. There are a few Google hits for Big Lurch and "greatest hits" of some type, but there's no indication that it passes WP:N. Such an album, if it exists at all, would not have been released through standard channels, as Big Lurch has been in prison since 2003. The article creator edited the Big Lurch article with numerous spurious quotes, which appear to have been deleted. Calamondin12 (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was going to comment that day this was nominated but waited and searching once again, I found no good sources so it's probably better to delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 31 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 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boris the Bear (character)[edit]

Boris the Bear (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article lacks notability and I can't find info about it elsewhere besides its website. This could be unrelated to the comics character Boris the Bear. TheGGoose (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's completely unrelated. This is a cookbook created by a group of teenagers as sort of an after-school/supplemental program. It's a great program but I can't see where this book has received coverage enough to merit an entry on Wikipedia. I think it's awesome that the teens got together and made this and I hope that they continue to do well, but this is just too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. A google search brings up nothing related to this bear. bake with boris the bear just brings up the wikiarticle and the website. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per the above arguments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:51, 30 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 03:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Wing: 3031[edit]

Nova Wing: 3031 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Game lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. – czar 22:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG, no coverage whatsoever from reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Just being on the iTunes store does not guarantee notability, and there was not significant coverage from any notability-proving sources. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:13, 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 redirect to Kim Kardashian, to leave history intact due to the interest in merging. Clear consensus is that this term does not warrant a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kardashian effect[edit]

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

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

Subject refers to a highly specific trend effect which is not notable and is likely original research; most references are not reliable and a quick web search provides mostly tabloid magazine or clickbait references to the subject. Ljgua124 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it has a couple mentions in notable periodicals e.g. Forbes but nothing that is per se notable as something encyclopedic. Possible redirect to Kim Kardashian?--Savonneux (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of it seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYN. The term would probably warrant a few sentences in the Kim Kardashian article, but hardly an article by itself. Being a neologism, I don't think several sources from fashion magazines/columns are enough to meet WP:GNG. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a multitude of sources that should provide more than enough proof of the subject's notability. It doesn't necessarily have to stay at this title. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notability isn't temporary. This is a term which will be forgotten in short order. Mentions in sources do not meet notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kim Kardashian, already reads much like a section from that article.  Sandstein  15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The term has existed for more than seven years [9], is still used today, and will likely be used in the future. There's a decent source used in the article [10]. And more that are not used [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. (Bonus points for sources from many counties: United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Lebanon, Australia) And some guy wrote a book about it [17]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment columns about celebs are WP:RS now? The book publisher, look at other books they've published, ebooks only and they only have a facebook page.--Savonneux (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not notable and term used everywhere for click bait are mutually exclusive. The problem is finding the term explained from the 10,000 articles using the term.

• I think it's more to do with lack of reliable sources. Eg. a quick google scholar search yields 0 results for "kim kardashian effect"Ljgua124 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unreliable barometer of notability; anything that fosters the notion that the Kardashians are of lasting notability should be staked through the heart. Quis separabit? 23:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we here to decide what is notable or what should be notable? Everyking (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Kim Kardashian is without a doubt an incredibly influential person on culture today, and numerous outlets have written about the effect she has on society. However, this does not mean that this effect itself can be synthesized into one overall phenomenon that can be considered independently notable of her as a topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not well referenced enough or very encyclopedic Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Kim Kardashian per WP:WPINAD. Might be notable for Wiktionary, but some of the material might be nice for the corresponding section on her main page. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - What @Sandstein: said - reads like a section of the Kim Kardashian article. - Fuzheado | Talk 03:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Appears to have been a part of Kim K article which metastasized. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or selective Merge - [Person's name] + "effect" just means "influence". Celebrities influence things. Style, fashion, culture, business, art, etc. This article is just about the influence of Kim Kardashian on a variety of different things. If you look for sources about that influence, you'll find plenty of them that don't use the term "Kim Kardashian effect" despite talking about the same thing. "Kim Kardashian effect" is no more a thing than: Paris Hilton effect (on psychology), Paris Hilton effect (on baby names), Justin Bieber effect (on tech consumerism), Justin Bieber effect (on economic perspective), Justin Bieber effect (about social media influence), Jon Stewart effect, Apple effect, a different Apple effect, Tom Cruise effect, Jay-Z effect (about his success in general), Jay-Z effect (about influence), Taylor Swift effect (again, just her influence), Taylor Swift effect (on business practices), Skrillex effect (on hair), Michael Jackson effect, Jay Leno effect, Oprah effect. Hm. I seem to have gone overboard. But this is a game you can play at home. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 31 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 with regards to deletion. Merger is an editorial decision not requiring an AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Super Smash Bros. competition[edit]

Professional Super Smash Bros. competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, trivia and primary sourced content including local tournaments. Author tried to add it to the main Super Smash Bros. Melee article, but it was removed[18] Once all the unwanted content is removed, there's not enough content to justify a standalone article. So merge to related articles which are already linked to from this page. Vaypertrail (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (or even just redirect) to respective game article sections on competitive play is most appropriate, based on the secondary source coverage. Then merge this specific title to Super_Smash_Bros.#Competitive_play. I suspect that there might eventually be enough coverage to spin out a fuller article summary style but if and when that happens, it should be sourced to secondary sources and not the mountain of primary sources as it is now. – czar 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I removed the list, though some major tournaments do have cited results in secondary sources, Prisencolinensinainciusol's efforts are impressive and understandable. There are still 25 remaining sources including a documentary covering the scene. Multiple sources have emphysized the uniqueiness of the growth of competitive Melee. If merge to Melee may violate WP:TOOLONG. Also NOTGAMEGUIDE focuses on inuniverse information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No it wouldn't, content about players go in their articles (which is about half of it), The Smash Brothers already has a page, remove the how-to content, and Major League Gaming already has a page, that's 90% of it gone.--Vaypertrail (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't understand why you think info about the competitive scene is okay on the player's pages, MLG and The Smash Brothers, but not on its own page or elsewhere. If we only have it on player pages then we get an non NPOV summary of major smash tournaments. For an analogy, you can't give an impartial History of the National Basketball Association solely through information on the History of the New York Knicks and other teams. Also, where exactly is the how-to content on this page? --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Other than the first few, the tournaments listed here had competitors attend from all of the US and in many cases internationally. As Valoem stated there's a lot of media coverage about Smash Bros. tournaments, probably enough so to justify this article and the list of tournaments. However, if the list isn't notable enough for Wikipedia I'd say it might as well just get merged into the main SSBM article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's a future for this article but I'm not sure the content is there now. Either the article should be expanded or there should be a judicious merge to Super Smash Bros.#Competitive play (keeping in mind WP:Summary style) and other articles and then a subsequent redirect to the same section. (It's fun how a comment can recommends two mutually exclusive options.)

  I've always found tournament listings as were here (whether physical or virtual sports) to be on the verge of WP:TRIVIA. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's the major tournament that make up the competitive Smash Bros. scene, so I wouldn't really say it's very trivial. I can understand that you'd think that way if you don't follow the professional players but none-the-less the tournaments listed here are well documented and relatively well known.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The funny fact is that I do follow them. Don't presume, please. The problem with such listings in general is that they fall in the WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile of stuff and provide no interesting WP:Summary style information that is published by reliable sources seeking to understand their meaning. I quite clearly qualified it by saying "all such listings verge on WP:TRIVIA", so also do not presume to imply that it was specifically Smash tournament listings with which I have issue. To expand a bit further, it gets into issues of WP:WEIGHT in a large majority of cases. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say that it's an indiscriminate list of information, since these tournaments are recognized as national-level tournaments. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "provide no interesting WP:Summary style information". I mean if it came down to it a prose description of all of the tournaments would just be written. That being said, in order to conform to WP notability standards the list would probably have to be trimmed down. Perhaps it would be best to only include tournaments from 2013-onward.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - The massive chart is WP:GAMECRUFT, and once you trim out the excessive stuff (like these all these names/nicknames of people who have no article or context to them), there's really not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know that there are tons of sources right now which extensively document the competitive scene. Sources provided by Prisencolinensinainciusol already suggest that a merge may be too long for the SSBM article. Other editors such as UltraDark who is familiar with FGC may be able to help as well. In the past 2 years smash has received more coverage that Professional StarCraft competition. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources posted:

1. Crossley, Rob. "Super Smash Bros Tournament Endorsed by Nintendo". Gamespot. Retrieved 2015-08-20.

   The article notes:

   Nintendo has signed a sponsorship deal with the games tournament group Apex, endorsing the event's quartet of Smash Bros competitions.Apex 2015, a three-day pro-games tournament which starts on January 30, will include individual competitions on all four games in the Nintendo series; Super Smash Bros for the N64, Super Smash Bros Melee for the GameCube, Super Smash Bros Brawl for the Wii, and the recently released Super Smash Bros for Wii U.First details of the partnership were announced via Apex's official twitter feed. "We are pleased to announce that Apex 2015 is partnering with Nintendo of America to bring an incredible Smash Bros event," the team wrote.

2. "Feature: The History of Super Smash Bros". Nintendo Life. 2014-08-28. Retrieved 2015-08-20. ((cite news)): |first= missing |last= (help)

   The article notes:

   For the average player, wavedashing and other unofficial techniques were of little relevance, but the reason why they’re so significant is because they helped to catapult Melee into the competitive gaming scene. The advanced level of control required to perform many of these actions quickly created a clear distinction between pro and more casual players. As a result, Melee has enjoyed great lasting appeal, and still makes regular appearances at many high-profile gaming tournaments.

3. "Competitive Smash is having a moment, but its players can't even agree on a game". ArsTechnica. 2015-05-17. Retrieved 2015-08-20. ((cite news)): |first= missing |last= (help)

   The article notes:

   His last two games have taken this logic to heart. Melee’s speed has been integral to its appeal as a competitive game. Top players can mash up to six to seven inputs a second, on par with Starcraft.

4. Also this source from Tech Times which states:

"The longevity of Melee was bolstered further by an increasingly large focus on tournament play. While it was never strictly built for high-level competition, Melee attracted a huge number of players that focused on playing the game competitively. The phrase "Final Destination, no items," became standard rhetoric for the game, and the tournament scene continues to thrive even 13 years after Melee was released."

This subject needs expansion not deletion. The subject has been covered by reliable sources and passed WP:GNG. There are tons more sources regarding the growth of this scene. Izno, Sergecross73 Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article's from NintendoLife and Techtimes really focus much more on the game series itself than the competition. (They're both called "The History of Smash Bros" after all, and detail the series as a whole from its inception.) They really only reiterate my point that a merge is a appropriate. (If the sources talk in passing of the competitive nature in discussion of the overall series, then it makes more sense that we do the same, and have this be a subsection in our Smash Bros article.) I can't comment on the Ars Technica source, as you added the wrong link for that one. The very brief GameSpot article, while fine, could basically be used for a singular sentence to the capacity of "Nintendo is sponsoring a tournament with this company on that date. Not much to expand on there... Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple more sources, one from MLG and one from USGamer that I uncovered in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmashBoards that I think definitely establish notability for this topic and which could lead to WP:SIZE/WP:WEIGHT problems in the series-proper article. My inclination is, as with Smashboards, to a weak keep. --Izno (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are just looking at sources that describe the existence of competitive smash as a whole, you're ignoring all of the sources that describe various players and aspects of the competitive scene. I'll need to read about this more but the way I see WP:GNG is that the existence of sources that "talk around" or allude to a particular subject should be enough to establish notability.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is pretty explicit that "talking around it" is not "Significant coverage", [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail. The players is not the topic (which is professional Smash). I'm not sure what you mean by "aspects" but I presume you're talking about the advanced techs which again do not address the scene. My weak keep is based on the existence of articles such as the MLG and the USGamer articles I noted. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a published book about competitive Smash too that should be considered. (Team Ben: A Year As A Pro Gamer, Fabiszak, Christopher K., 2013)--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it actually "published" though, or did he just self-submit it to Kindle type download sources. I could only find evidence of the latter, which would be less impactful... Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a print version of the book, that I know. However it really shouldn't really matter too much.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good source which covers the competitive scene significantly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:03, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Zurawski[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted. Still doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Does WP:SPA creator have WP:COI? Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since article only includes external links with no references at all. Two of the external links seem to duplicate each other content-wise and little if none of them could be converted reliable sources. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject has worked steadily in film and television since 1996 and has turned out hundreds of titles, including directorial credits for TV series episodes, theatrical features and shorts, as well as music videos. He is also a well known photographer. As of this writing, the entry has 11 inline cites, with a number of others, in the Polish press, which may be added. His name is already linked as cinematographer on two features, Jackpot (2013 film) and Mardaani, with other of his many credits presenting potential material for articles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep 29 Cinematographer credits in films I think it's makes him notable. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — Katerina dunaway (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sofiamar (talk • contribs). [reply]

• Keep meets minimum GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to elaborate? Which part of the GNG does he meet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regarding the "Polish press" clam, I see two links. [19] is a blurb about his appearance in a Polish talk show. [20] is an online newsletter/zine of a Polish professional association for movie-makers and like. Neither is a quality source. The English sources, aside from self-published, seem to variations of one article published (and republished/copied/re-edited) in Indian press, [21]. I cannot find anything else. In the end, I can't see why those refs make him notable (encyclopedic). Not each film director is encyclopedic; one needs to achieve some limelight - and this marginal coverage shown here so far does not seem sufficient to me. Let him win some awards, or for his work and/or life to be covered in more mainstream sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:51, 7 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. Wizardman 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of sports clubs[edit]

Average attendances of sports clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Arbitrary collection, which fails WP:NOTSTATS JMHamo (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An indiscriminate list of information. While there are many sources giving the actual attendance, I don't see any that give extensive coverage of the whole idea of the list - comparing attendance across different sports and organizations. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per foregoing. This editor has been creating a lot of these kinds of pages and I intend to drop him a note - it may not be for a few days though so if anyone wants to try their hand sooner, please go ahead! JohnInDC (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that regard, see The_100_professional_sports_teams_having_the_most_fans_on_the_social_networks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - LISTCRUFT, fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total cruft. Fenix down (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Similar article now also at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US soccer clubs listed by stadium capacity JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This information belongs in each club's article, not in its own article. ~ Rob^Talk 13:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:41, 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 redirect to WSFS Bank. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

500 Delaware Avenue[edit]

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

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

Lacks notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WSFS Bank, the building's main tenant. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as an utterly non-notable promotional article. Quis separabit? 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly non-notable. Personally, I don't think a redirect to WSFS Bank would be useful (who searches WP for an address like that?) but that would be an OK solution to me too. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WSFS Bank simply because it's a plausible search term and it seems its notable tenant is WSFS Bank, my searches found nothing good to suggest keeping this a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 30 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  17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Fehily[edit]

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

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

appears to be non-notable valereee (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The usual wave of social media profiles and small mentions here and there. Not notable, unfortunately. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Better sources are out there. Subject is mentioned in numerous independent works, he presented a report on himself (& family home) for a national broadcaster, he has appeared in two nationally broadcast comedy seasons, one of his singles has been played on a non-local radio station. He's notable enough. The article now has some of those sources added. More tone and NPoV work is needed but those are separate issues.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I couldn't find a single independent and reliable source about him. Sources on the article are of extremely poor quality (most are non-independent) and I'm afraid I couldn't find anything better out there. He's simply non-notable yet. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing which would meet wiki's notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 31 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Bir Sethi[edit]

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

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

Article appears to be a resume Sikandaramla (talk) 03:10, 21 July 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. A google news search provides quite a few sources showing notability, such as this (which is also referenced in the article), this, this (in Spanish), this, and this. And that's just on the first page. It continues: this and this, for example. Clearly notable. The article does have a WP:POV issue, and I've tagged it as such. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure promotionalism. A typical PR job that has no place in an encycopedia. "POV issue" is a gross understateement. Over personal, over-enthusiastic, full of puffery. Possible G11 speedy, actually. The article on her organization Design for Change, is so outrageously promotional that I have nominated for speedy deletion. If either she or it is notable, the article needs to be started over as a real encycopedia article. Borderline notability + promotionalism is cause for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried cutting some of the most blatantly promotional of the language in the article, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that to pass WP:GNG we need sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and provide nontrivial coverage. Instead all but the twenty19 source look non-independent, and that one looks of dubious reliability. The sources clearly exist (as onel5969's results show) but I think the article still needs a complete rewrite to be based on those sources and eliminate the promotional ones now in use, per WP:TNT. I would be willing to change my mind if such a rewrite happens. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - I'm not usually comfortable with academics but I suppose the consensus seems to be no...and my searches found nothing such as this, this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on her fellowships alone and her work honored by the Rockefeller Foundation, there are RS sources supporting everything. I don't see anything promotional now, since David Eppstein went through the article. Looks like an informative neutral article to me. -- 009o9 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

are you aware that though you refer to DE, he came to the opposite conclusion? DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is possible that she is notable, but if so, the article still needs to be deleted and started over. As David Eppstein said, the promotionalism is too pervasive. I also tried to see if a little rewriting would help, and failed also. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Ahem, Dave, you voted delete above so are you combining your comments to one? SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, thanks. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 31 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  17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Rampton[edit]

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

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

Non notable entrepreneur, all interviews with no major media coverage Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- John Rampton seems to be clearly notable, a well known and authority author for tier1 news websites known. He seems to gain authority and a known figure frequently asked for his opinion, for example here, here, here, here and several others. He seems to meet notability as an entrepreneur with Pixloo and Due mentioned in here, here. With a simple Google search, a notability can be established. My vote is a Strong Keep for him.Ireneshih (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Tier1 authorship isn't a real mover for me; however, the fact that his pieces are picked up and quoted by other Tier1 publications shows he is a leader in his field. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sources linked by Ireneshih are trivial mentions, the sources in the article are connected to the subject, like bios at sites he writes for. Web searches turn up pieces written by Rampton, not about him. Fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed all sources what Ireneshih has mentioned, I might agree to the point that they are unrelated to John Rampton. The sources are notable and ask for his views, but the question is about his role as an entrepreneur and investor. He has authority over the top niches including forbes, Huffpost and others, if the result is keep it will be only marginal and I might not be too much surprised, atleast promotional content must be taken care of.Kavdiamanju (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That was my take. He is an authority in his field and has quite a few references. The article itself needs taken down to the basics, but cannot see deleting it simply because of how it is written. --TTTommy111 (talk) 16:31, 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. The "keep" arguments are considerably weaker in terms of policy and guidelines, and often add up to "but he's very commercially successful, so he must be notable". Well, not according to our inclusion guidelines, as Tokyogirl79 points out. Her thorough analysis of the available sources hasn't been seriously addressed by those wanting to keep the article, which also weakens their side of the argument.  Sandstein  17:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Larson[edit]

B. V. Larson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable author with no adequate references for notability. none of his books are held in more than 80 libraries a/c Worldcat; Technomancer has 79, and the others are fewer than 20. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete References now on page (Amazon.com, Audible.com) cannot support ntability. He gets a few press mentions, Here: [22],and here: [23], news google search on his name [24], but not enough to source a page or support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found the same results: he's brought up occasionally as a WP:TRIVIAL mention, but sadly he has never received the type of coverage that Wikipedia would require to satisfy notability guidelines for authors. He's pretty much one of many authors whose works are self-published (either partially or entirely) or indie that has a fan following, but not one large enough to attract attention from places Wikipedia would consider reliable. Most of the sources I found were either WP:SPS or in places like SFFAudio, which are kind of squiffy as far as whether or not they'd pass Wikipedia's fairly strict verification guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough to meet notability here and do an interesting article. The article needs work, but there appears to be an interested editor in the commenting in the Book AfD; therefore, a better candidate for WP:ATD.

• io9 Larson is named in a short list of "successful" self-published authors, "B.V. Larson, who writes both sci-fi and fantasy, has sold some 250,000 copies of his 25 titles."[25]
• Associate Professor at Widener University. Brian V. Larson PhD [26]
• #6 Audible.com best-sellers for week ending May 16, 2015: The DailyMail [27]
• The New York Times chart (I can't see the article, used up free reads this month) [28]
• Referred to as an "established name" in the The Guardian [29]
• Book Review SFFAudio [30]
• Interview with "Spire Press" not sure if independent "B.V. Larson, the Amazon eBook King"
• Interviewing Authors (podcast) B.V. Larson: Tops in Amazon Science Fiction
• A feature advert spot on the Kindle YouTube channel [31]

There is nothing in the policies or guidelines that I've read where WorldCat has any bearing on notability. 009o9 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think I triggered consideration to delete this author's entry when I started to expand on one of his series. Perhaps each of his books or series don't warrant an entry, but at least a short entry on the author should be retained due to the number of books (70+ according to the entry under consideration). The author is still active so this number will grow.Thomasjones44 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unfortunately none of the sources above are enough to warrant a keep. Here's my rundown on them, since they were the same sources I found earlier for the most part:

1. io9 This was an insanely brief mention that says that he was successful. Selling well can help an author gain coverage in reliable sources, but an author is not notable because they are popular or because they sell well. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) Sometimes someone can be popular but still fail notability guidelines, as coverage is never a guarantee. At best this is a WP:TRIVIAL mention and not one that would give notability.
2. College. Being a professor is not something that would automatically give notability either and I don't see where he'd pass WP:PROF. There are a lot of associate professors out there and what he'd need is to show that he's held a prestigious position or is extremely notable in his teaching career - which he is not. This doesn't mean that he isn't a good teacher, I'm sure that he is, but being a professor does not give any sort of notability on Wikipedia unless he falls within PROF, which he does not.
3. DM, NYT. These are the same thing, which is a repost of an Audible bestseller/download listing. While bestseller lists are considered to be usable, the listing has to be notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and this was not one of the types of bestseller lists that would be considered notable. I should know - I was the one who pushed for this to be included in WP:NBOOK.
4. Guardian. This is another very, very brief mention. The thing about trivial mentions is that being mentioned isn't enough. The person in question has to be the focus of the article or at least be mentioned enough in the article where the journalist goes into depth. This just isn't here with this article and like the first trivial source, being popular isn't enough. It'd be nice if it was since it'd make it a lot easier for me to add various authors into Wikipedia, but it's just not. No amount of trivial sources will be equal to one reliable source.
5. SFF Audio. Not every review site is usable as a reliable source. The site has to have some sort of editorial oversight that can be verified enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. It's insanely difficult for most sites to do this since many are self-published sources or they don't undergo an editorial process that would satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. Offhand I'd say that this site wouldn't be usable because there's not a whole lot on here about how they vet reviews. If it was a staff member then there would be some wiggle room, but it isn't and it looks like it was from a somewhat random Goodreads user. I'm not meaning to knock Goodreads since I also have reviewed stuff on there, but this kind of gives me the impression that they just accept reviews from anyone.
6. Spire Press. This is a self-published source at best, assuming it's not a primary source. This is an interview that Larson gave on this person's blog. A lot of authors consider interviews to be primary sources and while I'm not one of them, this still isn't a usage source. Most blogs aren't usable as a RS because they're self-published and undergo little to no editorial oversight. While there are exceptions, they are very few and far between and this is not one of those exceptions. Even if it could be used, it's still only one source and an extremely weak one that could be very, very easily challenged by other editors.
7. Interviewing Authors. This kind of has the same issue as above in that it's essentially a self-published source. This quote on the "about" page pretty much invalidates it as a source: "If you’re interested in a doing an interview you can use as a promotional tool or if you’re an unpublished author who would like to be interviewed please see the “Interview You” program page." Going to the specific page shows that authors can purchase publicity on the site. I hate to say it, but this was pretty easily found. Sites that pay for coverage are usually pretty blatant because they have to be transparent.
8. Kindle. This is a WP:PRIMARY source. Larson publishes his work on Amazon, so it'd be within their best interests to publicize him. I'm not denying that he's popular, but the thing I need to stress is that selling well and being popular does not automatically mean notability on Wikipedia. It just makes it more likely that there will be sources, but this is not a guarantee. I've seen many, many authors sell extremely well via self-publishing (and heck, even mainstream publishing) yet still overall fail notability guidelines.

I'm not trying to be a hard***, but these sources are not enough to save the article. We cannot have an article without showing notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, which are insanely strict. Having an article on one of his series wouldn't be enough either, since it's usually easier to have an article on the author than it is for the books since we can collect sources for multiple books/series rather than have to prove notability for a single book/series. If the author doesn't pass notability guidelines then that almost always means that their work would fail as well. (The only exception would be in cases like Jobie Hughes, where the I Am Number Four series passes notability guidelines but he himself does not, but these exceptions are extremely rare.) If a series page was created without at least being able to establish notability for the author then it's extremely likely that all you've done is create a series page that would not pass NBOOK and would need to be deleted. There's also the fact that if you create entries too early then you run the risk of the author being remembered for having articles before it's time... which makes people more likely to see his work as non-notable, meaning that they'd become deletion targets. Right now the best thing to do would be to userfy the articles, wait, and brush up on notability standards. I know that last part sounds really, really arrogant, but it's kind of the truth: if you come forward and try to create the article with sources that are seen as weak (at best) or just outright unusable, then people will be less likely to believe you in the future if you try to say he passes notability guidelines with additional sources. This is the curse of book/author deletions: you really need to have extremely solid sourcing to overturn an AfD. Being popular is not enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Listed in the Top 10 sales in the New York Times. I would have though all authors listed in this list are sufficiently notable

for wikipedia, lest wikipedia forces authors to publish under the garrotte of large publishing houses? New York Times Bestsellers Adacus12 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked at a number of listings for his books, all of which are self-published (although his Amazon profile says that he has also published via a traditional publisher, but I didn't find evidence of that). His audible books are also self-published, and some of his books are e-book only via Amazon's own (self-)publishing platform. The problem with the Audible best seller listing is that we don't know if, for example, the book was on special that week for a very low price. I have seen Amazon and Audible rankings be manipulated (mainly by self-publishers) by providing their book for a short time for free or $.99. Since the sellers (both Amazon in this case, since it owns Audible) don't reveal that kind of information, we can't know what the presence on the list means. I did check and no BV Larson books are listed in the top 60 Audible books today. In terms of numbers of books sold, the statements that he has sold millions of books and that he is a best-selling author appear to be unverifiable. That said, there is an entire culture of self-published authors, some of which have quite a following, and there has always been a somewhat cultish underground of science fiction writers and readers that do not get the respect of traditional publishing. I don't think this person is notable, but if it continues to be easy to self-publish, I'm assuming that we'll eventually have a reliable structure of reviewing and reporting that would allow us at WP to accurately assess the impact of these authors. That's definitely not the case today. LaMona (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Full disclosure: I created this page, and I regret not putting more work into it. However, I do want to emphasize that this plays no role in my decision to keep.) I have followed B.V. Larson's career as an author since Swarm was first released on Audible. I created this page when Larson was about halfway through the Star Force series and I was impressed with how prolific he was even then. To me, Larson was - and still is - the quintessential wildly successful sci-fi/fantasy self-publisher. In 5 years he has released near 50 full length novels through Amazon, which is arguably the most popular and relevant book and audiobook distributor in the world. Every book Larson puts out hits both the Amazon and Audible bestseller lists upon release. Currently, Larson is rated #5 in the hourly-updated Top100 Science Fiction authors in Amazon (out of every author who has published under this category), actually ranking 3 places above George R R Martin and just under the late, great Michael Chrichton. Indeed, he even ranks #89 overall in the Top 100 Authors for every genre. Now, I understand what the argument is. Wikipedia has guidelines for author notability and the current sources don't address that. However, I would argue that Larson represents a new generation of self-made literary entrepreneurs. Thanks to digital media, you do not need to funnel your content through a large publisher or any publisher at all as long as you can get your work distributed by someone like Amazon. I would agree that the big problem is the disservice that Amazon does to authors by not making their ranking metrics public and available for analysis. I just find it to be absolutely absurd that in this era of digital media that success through self-publishing is considered less notable than success through traditional publishing. From another perspective, consider the Author notability guideline "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." If in this context we consider 'peer' to be authors, and importantly other self-publishing authors, B.V. Larson is consistently cited as being the best in the business. He has been interviewed by self-publishers and related ventures several times (examples: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36], he has been interviewed by Kindle for his success [37], he is mentioned in at least a couple how-to books on self-publishing Let's Get Digital: How To Self-Publish, And Why You Should, The Self-Publishing Playbook , and he is regularly mentioned as the epitome of a successful self-publisher (examples: [38], The Star , Canada Newswire, PRWeb, [39]. Additionally, a direct peer, author Barry Eisler regards Larson as notable self-publisher in his blog. In summary, if he is not notable for his works alone, he is absolutely notable as one of the first and certainly most well-known authors to become successful almost entirely through self publishing (Technomancer was published through Amazon's 47North). IF the article needs to be re-worked to include this information, let me know and I will find the time. Hopefully, a Wikipedian who agrees with me who has more talent in this arena will potentially assist in this venture, as well. Thanks for reading. lethalenoki (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lethalenoki Your argument is well-reasoned, but the sources still don't add up, from what I can see. Essentially, in the reliable sources (newspapers, mainly, and the one book) Larson is merely "name-checked" -- that is he is mentioned by name in sentences like: "...self-published writers including B.V. Larson and A.G. Riddle." And that's all. What we need is for there to be an article ABOUT him, or at least that goes into some depth, in such a source. That's what WP requires for notability. Sources that aren't neutral (like Kindle, which publishes him and therefore has a vested interest in making him look good), can't be used; nor can personal web sites and blogs. One of the sources starts out "Guess what! My cousin Brian is also a science fiction and fantasy author!" That's obviously not a neutral source. I agree with you that it's unfair that self-published authors don't get more attention, but until they start getting reviews in established sources, we have no reasoned way to separate wheat from chaff -- and, quite honestly, from the few self-published books I've opened up, there's a lot of chaff. LaMona (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• lethalenoki I am sympathetic to your argument, and I would WP:HEYMANN change my vote if you or someone else could show one or two major media sources that describe Larson in some degree of detail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 30 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 Procedural close. How about this: the lyrics were removed, their status a bit dubious in the first place. I'll close this and, as a kind of supervote (sorry), I'll say that as a fight song this is not the most notable of them all and I'll redirect this to Tennessee Volunteers. If it turns out an article can be made of it, power to you. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Vols, Fight[edit]

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

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

Copivio Hafspajen (talk) 17:13, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think Hafspajen was a bit confused when he nominated this article for deletion based on copyright infringement. The infringement is arguably the lyrics of the song itself. So, I removed the lyrics, leaving the one sentence that says what the song is. I would now treat this AfD as based on lack of notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive Instability in the Nucleus – Formula[edit]

Radioactive Instability in the Nucleus – Formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and entirely redundant. The basics of exponential decay (already thoroughly covered in that article) given a new original name and presented in some sort of how to-ish form (with some rather problematic terminology, I might add). Would have tagged it for CSD A10 if it hadn't been sitting orphaned for 6 years already. Kolbasz (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: Nothing notable; material already exist on the page Exponential decay#Half life in the form:

${\displaystyle N(t)=N_{0}2^{-t/t_{1/2)).\,}$

i.e. equivalent elsewhere so not worth a merge.Klbrain (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, srndlt, sni, si, s ... Utterly basic equation covered elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. If the article has nothing encyclopaedic to add about the topic, then content such as this should be deleted. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As is it's a how-to article. No sources and no discussion beyond the bare formula, which to me indicates that this is not an encyclopedia article. It's already covered elsewhere and much better on Exponential decay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oulton Park Folland Gnat crash[edit]

Oulton Park Folland Gnat crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not really notable, air show crashes happen regularly and do not all need their own articles unless it is something like Shoreham. Since this article was created after Shoreham, it seems a blatant reaction to Shoreham. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 17:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find more than routine news coverage, and it doesn't seem likely this crash will have any lasting effects. Not notable enough for a standalone article. Kolbasz (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kev Whyman was the winning cox for Cambridge University at the Boat Race for two years (1993, 1994), I wonder if that's enough of a notability intersection to keep this? (P.S. the article is shite, but I can help with that should it be kept...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - treating this as either a military of general aviation accident, it doesn't meet the threshold of notability for a stand-alone article. I'm not seeing evidence that the pilot is notable enough to sustain an article either. Can be covered by entries in relevant lists. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess the fact he was a mate clouds the judgement somewhat. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but true--Petebutt (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An entry in any relevant lists or srticle should suffice.--Petebutt (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable aviation accident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dittingen Airshow crash[edit]

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

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

Not really notable, air show crashes happen regularly and do not all need their own articles unless it is something like Shoreham. Blatant reaction to Shoreham. Also fails WP:NOTNEWS Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | my contributions | 16:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the grand scheme of air accidents this is a minor accident, not even an airline accident. Air show stunts cannot go perfect forever. Brandmeister^talk 17:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't sound very notable at all. Plus the article is incomplete. Versus001 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of completion is not a reason for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but if consensus is otherwise, move to Formation Grasshoppers or Dittingen Airshow (or both) and expand accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable because multiple reliable sources cover the event. See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34033478

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/switzerland-airshow-crash-at-least-one-dead-after-two-planes-collide-in-dittingen-10467856.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/23/us-swiss-airplane-crash-idUSKCN0QS0DQ20150823

to name but a few. Also it does not fail WP:NOTNEWS beacuse the article is 1. not journalism, 2. not news reporting on a routine event, 3. not a who's who and 4. not a diary. Just because something is in the news does not automatically make it non-notable. Greenshed (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One person killed in a collision between two vehicles. Happens on the roads every day. The fact that the vehicles were planes makes no difference. WWGB (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This can be adequately covered in the relevant list and the airport article. Not every accident at an airshow needs an article. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That something is common is not a reason to delete. There are several sources. Averater (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the existence of news reports does not automatically confer Notability - after all, the media would report a pimple on Kim Kardashian's backside. There is no in-depth coverage of the subject, just "something happened in Switzerland today"-type reports; the BBC report is four sentences long. Here in Australia any fatal light aircraft accident - and many fatal car accidents - will get a similar level of coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some in depth reporting in German. See http://www.bzbasel.ch/basel/baselbiet/schock-an-dittinger-flugtagen-zwei-flugzeuge-kollidieren-in-der-luft-129471019. Also your delightful example of the "pimple" is, I would suggest, not really a fair comparison. I very much doubt that the BBC, The Independent and Reuters report on such minor matters. The Press is not a single entity - what counts is distinguishing reliable sources from unreliable ones. Greenshed (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report in German is local coverage only; the website has articles about several local car crashes, covering them to a similar level of detail. YSSYguy (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Written locally but available internationally. I am not aware of any rule or guideline which bars or discourages the use of reliable local sources. As for the car crashes, their notability or otherwise would need to be judged on their on merits and is not really germane to the question of whether this article should stay (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). Greenshed (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge as per Mjroots--Petebutt (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A 'minor' collision, resulting in one fatality, something which happens on the roads each and every day. Can't help but think this article is a reaction to events at Shoreham. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Based on German-language sources and others, it appears to me that this incident has gained some notoriety beyond a run-of-the-mill car crash or news report. E.g Neue Zürcher Zeitung and BBC News (There are others as well but I am only citing the ones which I know are likely RS, not being familiar too much with the details of news reliability). The coverage is also not just local.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC article is the same brief four-sentence report already linked a few days ago. YSSYguy (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't think that it's routine coverage still - major news media like the BBC usually don't care about traffic accidents and local interest only stories from abroad. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I apologize if this comes across harsh (Not my intention) but air stunts do go wrong and not everyone of them crashes needs an article, Had it been similar to Shoreham than yeah but in comparison to that this was a very small and non-notable accident. –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether it "needs" an article but whether the article should stay now that it has been created. The notability of the event is principally determined by its coverage in third party reliable sources (including other languages), not by our personal views as to whether it was really that important or not. See above for links to those sources. Greenshed (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ what am I 5 now ?, I've been here 3 years - I think I know what AFD & reliable sourcing is by now!, My point was that it's a small & non-notable crash (Bar the BBC there's not much coverage anywhere else). –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, just because compared to the worst aviation incidents the tragedy was relatively minor does not make it non-notable. Second, the major items of coverage are more than the BBC. Some of the ones I have found, after not very much searching, are:

BBC (modest detail)

Boston Globe (modest detail)

Blick (in German, intermediate detail)

The Independent (modest detail)

Reuters (modest detail)

Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board (In German. Modest detail but the full report will be much more detailed)

bz Basel (detailed - in German - but this is just as notable as English reporting.)

Greenshed (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - in-depth coverage is localized. Notability is also not temporary. A year from now (and like others, I don't want to seem unfeeling) this will be mostly forgotten, and 10 years from now it will barely be a footnote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No doubt the Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board will produce a detailed and publically available report in due course. Greenshed (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial report is at: http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte/D-MSON_D-MUHH.pdf Greenshed (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wide press coverage. 92.113.204.213 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not more than news reporting, WP:NOTNEWS. But restore and merge if an article about the Dittingen airfield (Flugplatz Dittingen) or the Dittingen air show Dittinger Flugtage) is ever written. This Basel newspaper reports that there have been five crashes in the last 35 years of the biennial air show there, so there ought to be material for an article.  Sandstein  17:02, 31 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. WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The shop biz[edit]

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

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

Taking this to AfD once and for all, with creator User:Lost in the angels engaging in CSD tug-of-war. Non-notable business and almost exclusively promotional. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 16:33, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yosi Sergant[edit]

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

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

Non-notable per WP:N KatyRat (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sources in the article that go into some detail on him (instead of merely trivial mentions) and appear reliable to me, thus fulfilling WP:GNG. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 21 July 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have struck nominator statement as the nominator has been confirmed as a sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Everymorning talk 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- At one go, the subject was clearly notable however after digging into the details, the subject is not notable due to the limited contributions. There are several references, but the subject lacks notability, I cannot vote for a keep and my final vote is Delete.Ireneshih (talk) 15:27, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easycore[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)).

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

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

Not an exact copy (smaller and slightly different, so not perfectly WP:G4; still-poor references) of article that was closed delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easycore (2nd nomination) a few years ago. Appears to be same issues with WP:OR trying to synth up a WP:NEO-genre and no significant improvement. Listing here because there's been an edit war over its status as a redirect (which someone added after the deletion close, not as part of it) versus a full article. The next step is likely either a WP:SALT or a protected redirect. slakr^\ talk / 10:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. I also did a search for other sources in the usual places and found nothing. It seems unlikely that any reliable sources will now be forthcoming as this neologism has not taken off, so prevention of a recreation (since that since inevitable otherwise) will be necessary.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. Easycore is an established genre. It may have spawned from Pop Punk, it is however very different and should have it's own page to distinguish itself. It should not redirect into the Pop Punk page, in the same sense that the Pop Punk page should not redirect into the Punk page.--Waldizzle (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. I disagree with failing WP:NOTE. There are sufficient sources to make this notable, just by checking the sources links andBing news. I do believe that there are too many subgenres of pop punk and hardcore punk, where one could just make up a name for a derivative work. However, this doesn't mean that this subgenre shouldn't receive the same fair shake as each of the genres located on List_of_hardcore_punk_subgenres. This article would definitely need expansion to match the quality of the rest of them though. Inomyabcs (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page needs to be put to Rest, Permanently, for the Third time. This wouldn't even be going on but an IP who never edited before somehow knew on first edits how to change a re-direct. This page reeks of dishonesty. This page is as relevant as if someone said because the Rolling Stones named their tour "Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour" that "Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle" is now a genre. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete. I know how to change a redirect because I am a programmer about to study computer science at university. I can see how big the community is and I know how to distuingish it from pop-punk and metalcore/hardcore. It is a unique genre with a large following and deserves it's own page so that bands can affiliate with the genre properly. It's not shady that I know how to redirect after not editing articles previously because I have coded numerous websites and understand how to navigate one basically through links. Naming a genre Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle makes no sense, but if they named it SteelWheelscore and included bands with a particular mix of both Steel Wheels and hardcore music then it would make sense. Easycore is the clashing of pop-punk music (taking it "easy" as in upbeat) and hardcore (as in the core) to create easycore. Your analogy is irrelevant. 109.159.28.141 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — 109.159.28.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This is the IP who changed the re-direct. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easycore&diff=prev&oldid=675032861. Which is Not the same IP as above. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking your bolded "Delete" because you already said "Delete" above and you only get to "vote" once. You can comment as much as you like, but only one bolded !vote per person. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nom. Nothing to show this meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no Genre "easycore" its the name of a Tour. Bands who name a tour and have other groups on the tour don't all of a sudden become the "name" of said Tour. Its Laughable. The only sources are from the last 2 and 3 years. This supposed fakery has "supposedly" "existed" since early 2000s around supposedly "2002 or 2003". Its pretty obvious that the creating of supposed sources coincide with someones fantasy about creating a genre. A simple check on page creating and "sources" all coincide. Also, its not hard to ask a buddy who writes for some small unreliable online "music" page to add the word to supply a trumped up reference. Thats exactly what has happened here. If this were a real "genre" there would have been soucres all along from the supposed "inception" date until now. There isn't. Notice how much my position is Accurate. Accurate so much that it makes the "pro lets create a fake page" people angry and the argue to "me" an not to the reasoning of why this page needs to exist, a sure sign of deception. Which is what its been. I wouldn't doubt some of these people with the pro stance are the Same person. Even the frequency of anyone caring about this page that was, Laid to Rest Three Times, also shows this needs immediate deletion. A look at this history even as recent as June 23 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chunk!_No,_Captain_Chunk!&action=history shows how many "IPs" with first edits and other issues have been going on with pages like this since this page has existed, Its always POV. Never accuracy. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm striking through the word "delete". You are free to comment as much as you like, but please precede your second and later comments with something like Comment rather than repeating "delete". Among other reasons, if you cast more than one bolded "vote", it confuses the bot that archives these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - complete lack of attention from reliable sources. The sources provided, and the ones which survive at our French-language article, are content farms and fan-built or fan-submitted blogs. It's possible that this was used at one time by one pop-punk band to describe itself and/or one of its tours, but that does not make it a notable genre. Reliable sources writing about it make it notable, and there just aren't any. Redirecting to pop punk is also unadvisable: per the previous deletion discussion, "easycore" can refer to several very different genres of music, but if we don't have content describing any of them, then redirection is unhelpful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great Kurultáj[edit]

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

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

This article has been created by User:Hárpad, a confirmed sock of LTA User:Tirgil34, and thus qualifies for speedy deletion as per WP:G5. Apart from Hárpad, the main contributor to the article is User:Gashgali, who is almost certinaly another sock of Tirgil34. As illistrated at the LTA, Tirgil34 is a dedicated turanist, and the article has clearly been created for soapbox purposes. Weather or not this far-right festival in Hungary is notable is dubious. It thus qualifies for deletion as per various sections of WP:DEL-REASON. Krakkos (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable annual event in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's an important traditional / history reenactment event in Hungary. The topic may be attractive for far-right activists, but the festival itself is not a political event and the article is written from a neutral POV. (Should be renamed to "Kurultáj", though, as it's the most common name.) – Alensha ^talk 23:49, 31 July 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if it is a notable event in Hungary, then it would be good if someone who understands the language could add some reliable Hungarian sources, there really doesn't seem to be enough English sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. In addition, this article has been around for years, with no or little attempt to add RS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added two sources for the 2013 and the 2014 editions. This is an annual cultural festival of some importance, with coverage in independent RS. Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 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 no consensus. We have almost a 2:1 majority in favor of deletion, but that's not quite consensus. Whether something is a BLP1E / routine news topic or not is a matter of editorial judgment, so I can't weigh one side's arguments more than the other's.  Sandstein  19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toyosi Shittabey[edit]

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

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

non notable victim DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Extensive newspaper coverage, available with a quick Google search, supports the notability of Shittabey's murder and its effects on race relations and human rights in Ireland. Perhaps change name of article to "Murder of Toyosi Shittabey?" ABF99 (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: I'm neutral on this one but if kept it should be renamed for what it is: Murder of Toyosi Shittabey. ww2censor (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am grateful for the advice given here. I am an Irish anti racism activist and I am currently part of the Wikipedia for Peace 2015 program in Vienna. While i have anonymous edited wikipedia articles in the past this is my first account and first article i have created. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_for_Peace_2015 This was given nation wide media attention in Ireland in 2010 and also in the UK as well, so i was very surprised to see that there wasn't a wikipedia page about it, hence why i started one. I will continue to edit it, in order to make it better. LnrwhiIRE (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Death of Toyosi Shittabey or Murder of Toyosi Shittabey, as he was not famous before his tragic death. This is standard wikipedia practice for individuals who only become notable after/because of their deaths. Snappy (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill murder case, supposed criminal is dead, another accused person was acquitted, end of story. This article only serves to smear the acquitted defendant, so it violates also WP:BLPCRIME. The two sources given by ABF99 are from the immediate aftermath of the crime, there is no lasting impact, to go beyond the one-event-guideline. Kraxler (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Kraxler. I have struck out my move !vote. Snappy (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' per Kraxler exactly. Worth noting that large swathes of this is also unreferenced and (if it wasn't in the middle of an AfD) should have been removed. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are so many news articles about the murder and trial that went on over quite a long period of time. Alec Station (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the key is the lasting impact. Searches show that this really had none (other for the victim of course). Agree with Kraxler's assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whatever the circumstances were of the murder, there is little to write about here and no lasting effect; this is no Stephen Lawrence. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has not stood the test of time. Delete as per Kraxler Spiderone 09:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - From looking at Google Books and the various news commentaries written significantly after the man's death, it appears clear that the event (which, at the time, was well documented by many sources) has had a lasting impact. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is poorly sourced, but a search on google news [40] turns up not only extensive, national coverage of crime and trial, but ongoing coverage in stories such as [41] showing that the incident is familiar to newspaper readers and that it is part of the ongoing conversation about racism in Ireland. Extensive, intensive, nationwide coverage that extends through and beyond trial are what moves incident past WP:NOTNEWS and marks them as keepers. Contrary to some opinions above, a quick search establishes that this was anything but a "run of the mill" crime. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is irrelevant; page should be cleaned up as per NPOV, sourced, and moved to Murder of Toyosi Shittabey. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source # 1 is a list of search results that are all from April (crime) and December (trial) 2012, crime and trial are "one event", there is no coverage after the trial. # 2 is the most trivial mention I've seen in a while, it's not about the subject of this article. Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - More than enough coverage to establish notability here. Article needs lots of work but there's no doubt that the subject meets GNG. Support moving to "Murder of..." Fyddlestix (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is more about the event than the actual victim, and the event lacks lasting effects. Ultimately, the subject is a non-notable victim of a non-notable crime. Also, as Kraxler said above, there are some issues with WP:BLPCRIME—if not explicitly against the policy, certainly against the spirit of the policy. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the article certainly needs to be moved to Murder of.. or Death of Toyosi Shittabey, so let's assume that if kept it will be moved and discuss notability. Here are the results of searching Toyosi Shittabey on google books: [42] It is discussion of this kind, after the breaking news stories has come and gone, that make an incident, a crime, a murder pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree 100% with Kraxler who says it all. NOTNEWS, one event, no long-term impact. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Inks.LWC (and Kraxler, who showed specifics). We have a bad habit on WP of conflating what are at best BIO1E event articles (crime or otherwise) with actual personal depth of coverage BIO articles, which are separable from individual events. The fact that this has had no long-term impact automatically disqualifies it from the encyclopedia. MSJapan (talk) 18:18, 1 September 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 List of Get a Life episodes#Season 2: 1991-1992. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend 2000[edit]

Girlfriend 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references. Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Get a Life episodes. I found some mention of the episode in relation to the season one DVD, but they were mostly just mentions of DVD extras. They weren't the type of mentions we'd need for this to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 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 Speedy Delete G11 / G12. Peridon (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy and Natural Weight Loss[edit]

Easy and Natural Weight Loss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:OR and Wikipedia is not a how to guide applies. Atricle was Prod'd, by removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as copyright violation of [43]. Earwig report: [44] (98.6 similarity). GermanJoe (talk) 15:18, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater[edit]

Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete This is an utterly non-notable paper, created by Roxydog13 (talk · contribs) who was flagged by Worldbruce (talk · contribs) as being connected to the subject in some way (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PortionScientist). That it got picked up by a few 'food advice' columnists as the 'food advice of the week' is not evidence of notability in any way. The article is simply a basic 'summary' of each sections of the paper, and is not encyclopedic in the least. Additionally, the original article was published on 1 JUL 2015, and has gained zero citations in any scientific journals. Compare this with our truly notable Category:Biology papers, such as The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance cited well over 3000 times. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I thought there might be something that could be saved here, but on second thoughts, no. The article sounds like it comes out of a women's weekly magazine and even if the tone could be cleaned up, we are no journal dump, especially for non-notable papers like this. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I saw the title of this I was expecting a diet book not an academic paper. Individual academic papers are rarely notable and a paper analysing a small survey seems incredibly unlikely to buck the trend. Hardly anything here suggests the paper is notable. That it got a bit of news coverage is not surprising or very significant. Pretty much anything written on the subject of diet will get coverage in the health columns of the newspapers and the wackier the better as far as their editors are concerned. The spin being put on this in the article, and in the press coverage, is very dubious. It may be that people who stick to a small number of foods are fatter but the implication that eating a lot of random stuff makes you thinner is so far away from science that the "implications" section could be called "Dodgy inferences and wishful thinking". The criticism section could be retitled "No shit Sherlock" too. Finally there is the comical description of certain foods as "rare". Pork belly? Rare? Don't common pigs have bellies that get sliced up and sold? Kimchi? Rare? Don't the Koreans eat that with almost every meal the same way us fat westerners shovel down the chips/fries? This is hardly written from a global perspective! In short, this article has provided me a little innocent amusement but it doesn't belong here and it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Salt[edit]

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

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. Maybe too soon. Quis separabit? 13:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (the only good move target would've been Musketeers but even then that's recent enough where it may not be permanent) and my searches here, here and here found nothing with these being the best results. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 2 above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 31 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 RHaworth with reason G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Love You Care[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (books) KylieTastic (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't even find it listed to purchase anywhere, much less reviewed.--Savonneux (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:PROMOTION Appears to have been self-promotion for a novel. The editor who created the article is the name of the author of the novel. The editor has now blanked the page, so there is nothing left to keep. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 23 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 redirect to Miss International. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International 2016[edit]

Miss International 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL The Banner talk 11:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss International, this seems quite early in the day, but it still gets some hits. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is redirected, protect it until reliable sources emerge. Otherwise the article will be promptly recreated. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss International. Does appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --DAJF (talk) 14:23, 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fear (2015 film)[edit]

The Fear (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. It has not received significant coverage in a third party source, it hasn't been widely distributed, it's not historically notable, it received no awards, and it's not being taught anywhere as far as I know. Google searches turn up nothing of value. The IMDB link is a database which is user contributed. The Variety link literally just lists the film by name, and the Screen Daily link barely touches on this particular film. Non notable cast and director. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nom believes that redlinks equal non-notable, which is incorrect. The film has been selected to be screened at the Toronto Film Festival, one of the biggest festivals on the planet. I suggested the nom should read WP:BEFORE, which they chose to ignore. In seconds I found this, this, this and this lengthy review. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Source 1 is a IMDB style database source. It adds nothing to this. Source 2 is a "Hey, watch this trailer" source, and then it goes on to say when the release date will be. It also adds nothing to this discussion as it just gives people a heads up that this film is coming out. It's not a review. The 3rd is the same as the 1st. The "lengthy" article ends with no rating; and it only amounts to 1 review. That doesn't qualify as substantial third party coverage. The Undead Never Die (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. It's a lenghty review of the film, clearly passing WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From GNG, "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." So no, it does not clearly pass anything. The Undead Never Die (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More and more. Burn. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, examples of other reviews [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. As a side note, films which are screened in Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Toronto, Sundance, Locarno and in other very notable festivals are generally widely reviewed, both in mainstream and more specific press. For an effective WP:BEFORE, in case of non-English films, it is also important to search for their original language title. Cavarrone 17:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 09:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep per easily meeting WP:NF and speedy close per 1) poor WP:BEFORE which missed significant coverage and 2) further and apparent misunderstanding of WP:NF and WP:NONENG. In his unintended error, the nom apparently expects a brand new film to be judged by attributes untended only to encourage diligence research for older films. A brand new film is NOT expected to have attributes which might be expected of something that has been out for years or decade. Being brand new, it need not be "widely distributed" or "historically notable", and only now making it through festivals it need not have (yet) "received awards" and, being brand new it is foolish to expect it would be part of any educational syllabus. My thanks to Cavarrone for sharing the non-English sources perfectly fine for a non-English film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to anyone wishing to close: The brand new article which was perhaps impatiently sent to AFD was stubby, yes... but under WP:BEFORE and WP:Editing policy it was easy to bring up to C-Class. I remind the nominator that Wikipedia is a work in progress... and while AFD is not intended to force cleanup, we do not toss what is improvable. Anyone who wishes to, will find no one arguing with an early close under WP:OUTCOMES. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:45, 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. Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bailey Skiffle Group[edit]

Bill Bailey Skiffle Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I debated whether or not to nominate this as it seems to have indeed existed and may have been known at the time but it may have succumbed to time and being before the Internet, archived sources offline. My searches found nothing particularly aside from here and here (both contain a New Statesman article about what seems to be the author talking about starting this Wikipedia entry, this is the original link written by Becky Hogge briefly mentioning this group) and here (browser, where I found this particularly interesting note). This would've also been a good one to move elsewhere as an orphan, I'm not seeing anything and, unfortunately, this has gone too long without any significant edits. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination's search links show books such as Skiffle: The Story of Folk-song with a Jazz Beat; Skiffle: The Definitive Inside Story; Jazz in Britain; &c. which all seem to confirm what we have in the article. The topic is therefore notable and our editing policy is to build upon this content, not to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously needs improvement, but a number of reliable sources confirm its notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article, no doubt, needs a lot of work. However, given the multiple references to the group in print, it seems to be at least somewhat notable in a historical sense even if they had little to no chart success. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:27, 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) 07:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic (Game)[edit]

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

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

Unreleased video game, no third-party references or evidence of notability. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too soon. I searched, but found no usable sources, nor any indication that such sources exist yet. Grayfell (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it seems as though this might be too soon for an article. Anarchyte 10:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, I'm not finding any coverage from reliable sources here. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 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 redirect to Meg Bennett. Duplicated article. No need to continue this discussion here, consider nominating the article with the correct spelling, provided that WP:BEFORE is observed. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Bennet[edit]