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 per WP:G1. I read through this a few times and for the life of me I can't quite figure out what this article is supposed to be about. I'm willing to re-open this if anyone particularly wants it to go through a full week, but I honestly don't see where this will close any differently or where any of this could be helpful to merge elsewhere even if there were a good place to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marent[edit]

Marent (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)

Reads like an essay and is full of original research towards the end. Totally unencyclopaedic. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 4 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. G3d as an obvious hoax - clearly doesn't play for the mavs. slakr^\ talk / 05:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz de toledo[edit]

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

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

Does not satisfy WP:NSPORT; given references either do not support the text at all or demonstrate sufficient coverage. Drm310 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Credit Union[edit]

Summit Credit Union (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)

Promotional. Sources mention it only in passing; no thorough coverage in WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article was replaced with a promotional version. I have since reverted and did a bit of updating. This organization is one of the largest and oldest credit unions in the state of Wisconsin. The nominator clearly did not perform a thorough search of this organization under previous names as there are plenty of offline and online sources. --198.150.12.30 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, One of the largest Credit Unions in Wisconsin. For example, in 2012, it was 2nd largest in terms of assets ($1.78 Billion), 4th largest in terms of members (122,974) and 4th largest in terms of full time employees (329).[1] Search for Charter number 67190 at researchcu.ncua.gov and it shows 147,000+ members and $2.26 billion in assets. For comparison, Landmark Credit Union is Wisconsin's largest CU in terms of assets with $2.7 Billion and 254,000+ members. After only a very brief search, I found that Summit was apparently the largest around 2007 as published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Wisconsin's largest newspaper.[2] --Dual Freq (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This organization has indeed received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. This credit union, due to it's age and size, is covered on a regular basis by the Wisconsin State Journal, The Capital Times, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (three state-wide newspapers). Not to mention the reference I had in there from the American City Business Journals. When I originally wrote this article three years ago I ensured it contained a very generous number of sources with plenty of references for expansion. Since then much has changed with this organization and one could easily add many more well sourced sections to this article.

The individual that nominated this article for deletion appears to be a recent changes patroller. However, he tagged this article for deletion not 5 minutes after an IP edit. I have 13 references in this article, there is absolutely no way he read through the entire article and all 13 references in less than 5 minutes. This entire deletion proposal was a driveby tagging without investing proper research before making said nomination. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AlphaQuadrant. North of Eden (talk) 19:19, 8 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 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenn Gividen[edit]

Kenn Gividen (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:GNG &WP:POLITICIAN. The only coverage (and sparse at that) he seems to have received is for being the 2016 presidential nominee of the American Freedom Party, a very small but notable U.S. political party. However, he cannot claim notability for this as he has relinquished that mantle, having withdrawn his candidacy well over a year before the election. This means he won't appear on any state ballots in the general election, and effectively it's as if he was never the nominee. His article was previously deleted for lack of notability, and there is no apparent justification for its recreation based on Wikipedia's inclusion standards. JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Non-notable political figure. Redirecting to Indiana gubernatorial election, 2004 might be considered, however.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected (in 2008) and now already withdrawn 2016 candidate, fails WP:NPOL, web searches turn up routine coverage of his failed campaigns. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Being an unelected candidate for office is not an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia. A minor party candidate for President of the United States can still be notable if he's had enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but that hasn't been shown here — the article cites just three sources, two of which are to an unreliable blog that fails WP:BLOGS — and it's not a claim of notability that entitles a person to an article in the absence of enough sourcing to satisfy GNG. The best solution here, to me, would be a redirect to American Freedom Party. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be quite appropriate. The subject ran on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2004 for Governor of Indiana. He was nominated briefly for President by the Freedom Party, but dropped already out, a year and a half before the election. He's not involved in any way with the party leadership. Kraxler (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG by a mile. --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 04:10, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact the nomination was withdrawn... The Banner talk 02:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mydala[edit]

Mydala (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)

advertising The Banner talk 20:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this, nobody will clean this up anyway. Forgot that I had nominated it before for advertising. The Banner talk 21:11, 4 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 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NV music[edit]

NV music (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)

Artile is about a band that formed in 2014 with no coverage in independent reliable sources. The article has one source, but it appears that it may have been copied from another article as it does not verify anything in the article. I could find no sourcing to establish notability in my own search. From the information in the article itself, their output appears to be two singles which have not charted. Whpq (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree and my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claim of notability in the article, unsourced, a fake chart table with a reference to something else (copy/paste leftover?), no coverage anywhere Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 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 01:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siglemic[edit]

Siglemic (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 biography. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This may be somewhat known in the video game world and such but my searches found nothing good at all (News here) so there's nothing to suggest solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Substantial coverage from RS's is pretty faint and about a single event, not meriting a WP article per WP:BLP1E. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:17, 8 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 Life on Mars#Viking lander biological experiments. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gillevinia straata[edit]

Gillevinia straata (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)

Most of this article is not about the proposed life form at all, but is redundant to Life on Mars. The rest is just a cynical attempt to give legitimacy to a crackpot theory by adorning it with a dignified pseudo-Linnaean name. Although the article has been made to look properly sourced to scholarly journals, on closer inspection it turns out that the reliable sources don't talk about this hypothesised organism and the ones that do are amateurish offerings in non peer reviewed publications. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about the inaccuracy, but the Gillevinia straata article is dedicated to the hypothetical life form found by Viking 1, not to Life on Mars. It was indeed converted to a redirect in the past, but I suggest a cleanup, nothing more. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Despite the claims of the creating editor, this completely fails a check for objective reliable sources actually discussing the organism. Wikipedia is not a place for wholly unsubstantiated fringe theories to be treated as legitimate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For reference, the article already existed as a redirect, and was restored along with having updated information. It is not my creation, the unreliable sources can be removed. It simply requires a massive rewrite to meet a neutral point of view. I wouldn't call it a "wholly unsubstantiated fringe theory", either. The subsection of people who accept it is growing, due to the fact that the methane in the Martian atmosphere shouldn't be there if there's no life. Something has to be supplying the methane or it will evaporate away. The two possibilities are methane-producing microbes and volcanoes. One problem: Mars is geologically dead. Until we find another physical process that explains this, it is a reasonable explanation that it is created by life. It's not an unsubstantiated fringe theory. It is, however, a little bit of a fringe theory. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect per nom. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From the scientific perspective, the ONLY publication by the author (M. Crocco) was declined for publication (failed the peer review). It is quite fringe and borderline with pseudoscience. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No results at all on NASA ADS, and the only reputable source I've been able to find pour scepticism on the claim. No media coverage either. The article gives the appearance of legitimacy by citing loads of decent but irrelevant sources and generally talking about another topic. Best to expunge this pseudoscientific claim from the encyclopaedia entirely. Modest Genius ^talk 10:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove the sources that reek of not being properly cited. This article CAN be salvaged, the question is whether it's worth doing so. I say keep but give it a rewrite. Take out the psuedoscientific parts. We can't deny the possibility that Viking 1 did find life, but we can take out the parts that are fringe. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to life on Mars#Viking lander biological experiments. The article itself is not a good idea per all those above, but it is a reasonable search term to redirect for readers who want to learn more about why it's not important. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to life on Mars#Viking lander biological experiments. The search term is a reasonable one, but the article is giving too much weight to a fringe belief. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as the term does appear in a few books. But does not have a great deal of material written on it from reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per StringTheory11. There's enough evidence to deem the term borderline "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, but it does not warrant a separate article when the topic is already covered in sufficient detail elsewhere. Praemonitus (talk) 16:41, 10 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 closure. The previous result (2nd nomination) still stands. Article was recreated without a single independent source. I restored the redirect. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown Fire Department[edit]

Allentown Fire Department (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)

Page has been reposted but still has the same problems as before. Should be merged as agreed before when it was brought up. Ozzyland 19:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:53, 5 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 01:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stride Entertainment[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only reference is home page. ubiquity (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To be honest, my searches found absolutely nothing therefore there's nothing to suggest improvement and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 07:20, 6 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 closure. This was created twice at the same time, discussion will be at the 3rd nomination. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Matton[edit]

Johan Matton (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 actor, a perfect puffery. https://en.wikipedia.uz/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_June_25 Kavdiamanju (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not sure if Kavdiamanju has missed the history contributions or has an agenda. The Article Johan Matton has been updated the last 3 months by several news articles and a link to a recent TV interview. More han 10 separate contributors/users has added news regardig Johan Matton being notable. Worth taking a look at the article and read through.

The article has also been polished several times and commercial aspects has been deleted. There is also a Swedish Wikipedia regarding the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.19.146 (talk) 19:13, 4 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Erwood[edit]

Russel Erwood (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:BLP1E - being made the "jester" of a small town in Wales is this person's only claim to fame. Coverage in RS is of the soft-news variety, no evidence of lasting or meaningful notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with Fyddlestix's argument that the appointment of Russel Erwood as town jester is of little significance. Being appointed the jester of anywhere in the 21st Century has great historical value and is definitely something that should be on Wikipedia. A small internet search turns up news from all over the world including Japan, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and of course the UK. The appointment of Russel Erwood is not to be confused with the myriad of entertainers who call themselves a "jester". This is an official engagement. There has been just one other official appointment of a jester in modern times. And this is the first time a jester has been appointed anywhere in the UK for centuries. According to the articles that cover Russel Erwood's appointment he is currently the only official town jester in Britain. This article is important and should be expanded using the numerous online sources available and not deleted. branwenwales1981 — Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Perhaps a worthy person, but utterly NN. I assume that he was appointed by the local Community Council (the equivalent of Parish Council in England. My guess is that the press has picked it up as unusual, but that does not make the appointment or appointee notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I believe there has been an ongoing conflict of interests with an editor adding articles and edits regarding Edwryd le Fol and the real person who performs the character. I reverted a number of edits by Rustymagic who added Rosyln Walker as Edwryd le Fol as the jester for Conwy as non notable (see revert 30th Dec 2014). I also believe as I stated on his talk page that Rusty Magic and Roslyn Walker are one and the same person. Now a different named person has been 'inducted' as the first jester in 700 years as the same character. This time we have Russel Erwood as Edwyrd le Fol and another user defending the dubious notability. I may be wrong (and happy to retract this assertion) but it seems more than a coincidence. It leads be to believe that the person/s in question is trying to get around Wikipedia policy. And therefore all such entries / articles should be deleted until this has been resolved. However I am not totally against the inclusion of modern day jesters as long as reasonable notability can be referenced Robynthehode (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, there was some buzz all over the world at the time of his appointment, and that was it, "town jester" is a low profile job, and the appointment is not really significant, meets all three conditions of BLP1E. Kraxler (talk) 17:30, 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 keep. Considering that nobody contests the later "keep" opinions based on research into sources, I assume that the earlier "delete" opinions are superseded.  Sandstein  18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla al-Hadj[edit]

Abdulla al-Hadj (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 suspect this is fictional as my searches (even a basic browser search only finds mirrors) found nothing and I even suspect the one book never mentions this as the search in the link "Jacobzoon Lucifer" and this showed nothing. Maybe it's non-English and offline sources but I wanted comments from other users. I also want to notify the author User:Chrislk02, with whom I'm very familiar, and get his input. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the tagger of the article, I also want to notify @Everymorning:. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is a mess. The reference is a copy of the reference in the Hendrick Lucifer article. There apparently was a Murdu in the East Indies, but the current article links to a town in Iran.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Probable delete, although The article does have a source. Perhaps one of the article's early editors User:the Man in Question, User:Chrislk02 knows something about the topic, or has that book. Knowing that transliteration , especially of names, is highly variable; that lots of notable people from the Muslim world lack online sources; and that substantial numbers of converts to Islam and of pirates (not usually intersecting circles) then existed - I am not quite comfortable deleting this until someone looks at that book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Found him. with only a little searching. I'll put the source on the page.18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I googled until I found the bit that I just put on the page. I think we can eliminate the suspicion that this is a hoax. There are sources. Someone willing to track down a physical copy of the book can find more. As, probably, can someone diligently searching online under variant spellings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that User:SwisterTwister will remove the hoax tag form the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Final thought. I am a huge fan of WP:BEFORE. But when dealing with transliterated names, special caution applies. IMHO it is a kind of WP malpractice to take something to AFD, or to support deletion, on the grounds that the particular transliteration used on the page did not turn up in a search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when Chrislk02 will respond as he's been gone for the past month and it seems The Man in Question is not all that active. Maybe it's not a "hoax" but notability may still be in question, I like the improvement but I'd still like to hear from other users. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching under alternative transliterations, because, frankly, it feels as though you are pushing the envelope pretty hard. Given that WP:BEFORE stipulates that you "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability," what is your justification for continuing with the AFD even though your original justification was: "I suspect this is fictional."?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you intend to just leave it up for a month or more, until one of the men who edited it years ago logs back in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No (and I don't exactly understand why I would leave this here for a month and I never said that)...but is this also notable? SwisterTwister talk 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fact that Abdulla al-Hadj was a pirate who claimed to be born in England and took some loot and was then captured is established. However I do not see anything indicating that this is enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting a courtesy pause: The Rutter book is only available online in snippet views, so I had intended to stop in to my usual library today and take a look at what Rutter has to say about our English haji pirate. But my library is doing some sort of renovation with the result that when I went to look up the shelf location I discovered that it has been shipped offsite. I'm writing to request a few days delay in a deletion decision so that I can have them bring the book to me, and I can take a look and see what I find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I will assume this isn't a hoax for the time being and hope that E.M. Gregory can confirm his existence, but I am not so convinced by this article. I wasn't able to find any sources in English or Arabic for any of the variations of search terms I tried, not even in the British Library archives (which you'd assume would have records on him). The closest I got was this article which makes mention of a pirate named Rajah who attacked a British trading vessel in 1800, but that is almost certainly grasping for straws since his article states that he was active in the South China Sea. I vote delete if E.M. Gregory is unable to confirm his existence within next week. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I was mistaken, the link I posted uses rajah as a word, not a name... Elspamo4 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure how a book of "tales" from 1930 will confirm his existence or notability.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThank you for your patience. just fyi, Elspamo4, they called it the "South China Sea" back then, geographical names often fall from use. Got the book today, I am relying on Owen Rutter whose endnotes on this chapter indicate that he worked from primary sources, from Admiralty and John Company records (which include trials) and on the published and unpublished memoirs and letters of British officials serving in Penang. Rogoziński's account echoes Rutter in less detail. I can put more of the bloody details (murder) of the Haji Abdullah's capture of the brig Robert Spankie as Rutter cites them from the trial transcript into the article if that seems desirable. Just flag me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there are so few of us who can deal competently with transliterated names (& in this case 1 part of the name is common to a large percentage of Moslems), that it sometimes is a good idea to bring something here without an extensive search in material one cannot understand.. I've tried such searchers, and usually was not clear I had found the right person. The advantage of bringing it here is that it may get looked at by those who can help. I have for years strongly advocated WP:BEFORE to the extent of trying to make it policy, and enforced by some automatic mechanism, but only a reasonable effort is required. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Point taken. Transliteration drives me crazy. I do hope someone stops by who can identify "Rajah of Murdu" and "Murdu", although the port cities of an era can cease to exist. There is, however, a real problem at AFD with over-reliance on online sources. Especially with history, many significant people and events who have, for whatever reason, ceased to interest the modern world are only source-able from old books and journals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks for verifying, E.M.Gregory. Your information led me to find this source, which should clear any remaining doubt. It recollects the entire event of the pillaging of Robert Spankie on 25 September, 1843 in Murdu. "The vessel was detained some time, and then despatched to Penang, with a letter from the Rajah to the Authorities representing a person named Hajee Abdullah, who was sent on board in chains, as the principal actor in the outrage. Hajee Abdullah, being tried before the Court of Judicature, was found guilty as being accessory to the murder of the Commander and Supercargo of the Robert Spankie [..]". This book also alludes to the piracy off the coast of Murdu, and states that the village was destroyed in 1844 in the 'Battle of Murdu' as a result. I'll assume, for now, that Hadj's other biographical information is accurate as well. (As a note to E.M.Gregory, Murdu is apparently in Sumatra). Elspamo4 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As for the question of notability, I think being a captain of a crew is notable in itself. We have at least 70+ articles on French and American pirates alone, some of which have some really questionable credentials and references, yet this is one of the very few articles on a pirate active in this specific region. Though I still can understand the rationale for his non-notability. Perhaps I or someone else will find more sources before a decision is reached. Elspamo4 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to User:Elspamo4, who makes a good point. Considering the scale of piracy around the Malay peninsula in the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, the lack of coverage is a gaping hole in Wikipedia's coverage of the region/period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 5 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. Nakon 04:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Herbal Remedies[edit]

Scottish Herbal Remedies (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 (miscapitalised) article advances the idea that Scottish herbal remedies exist as a distinct thing. They don't as far as I can tell. The sources include advertising, unreliable websites and a couple of book sources that again as far as I can tell, don't actually show Scottish herbal remedies to be a distinct concept. Google search for Scottish herbal remedies (quoted) turns up around 30 unique hits, with this article first. I call WP:SYN if not spam. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe if we remove the worst excesses of the individual treatment info we could consider a move to 'History of herbal medicine in Scotland' - given the subject has a long history of being studied there which continues at universities today, this might not be too controversial.--ℕ ℱ 14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes, I agree that a historical approach would be preferable to one giving a list of ingredients (though the latter approach seems quite popular on WP (Category:Medicinal plants by tradition) but plenty of sources are available which are specific to Scottish herbs (and include or are devoted to aspects of traditional medicine).[3][4][5] And, yes, academics do deal with this specific topic – Celtic Medicine in Scotland.[6] I tend to think "Celtic herbal remedies" or even "Celtic medicine" might turn out to have a good scope so I might favour merging to such an article if one was created. Meanwhile this topic is separately notable. I agree that the title is a descriptive phrase and not a proper noun. Thincat (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Scottish herbal remedies" is, so far as I can see, a synthetic topic without any good coverage in RS. Even the arguments above seem to be in favour of other topics rather than the topic in question. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is possible that there is a germ of a topic here. Celtic folk remedies, for example, might work. Such an article would include more than just herbs favored by the Scotts, obviously. One might ask whether this article has anything worthy of keeping in a proposed new article. Alas, I find nothing. The sourcing is atrocious, the claims dubious, and the framing in violation of a number of policies and guidelines. So WP:TNT should be applied and I don't think that a redirect is necessary. jps (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alternative approaches, as suggested by Thincat and jps might be possible. But those cannot and should not represent the material we have here. This article makes affirmative medical claims, and fails to support them with WP:RS much less WP:MEDRS. Most of the web sources are inadequate. Many of the sources cited by inline citation are simply absent from the reference list; those that are present do not inspire a great deal of confidence. Indeed, at least one is cited defectively: Colonsay, one of the Hebrides was a 1910 book, not by Murdo MacNeill, but by Murdoch McNeill. The assumption of good faith in no way requires me to believe that greater care was taken in analyzing these sources (some of which go back to the 18th century) than was taken in citing them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This is a shallow article. There are however quite a number of Harvard type citations in the text. Unfortunately, the article fails to ideitify the publications cited. Possibly rescuable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The problem really is that this isn't established as a topic unto itself. It would make sense that herbalism in any area would use local plants; nevertheless I would question whether this is really distinct from European herbalism as a whole. At most this identifies some plants of limited range. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I feel that this article should be deleted, and a historical approach/celtic medicine may be preferable. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Gilliard[edit]

Seth Gilliard (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:BLP of a musician, which literally just asserts his existence without even attempting any claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. Literally speaking, half of the entire article is taken up just by his name and birthdate. I'm willing to consider withdrawing this if the article can actually be improved to assert and source any reason at all why he would actually warrant coverage in an encyclopedia — but this is not a place where every musician who exists at all gets to have an article just to advertise his existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article stratifies WP:NMUSIC #1 with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as [abc news, Charleston City paper, and the huffington post. This is without doing significant searches and just looking at the first three sources in the article. This isn't the German Wikipedia, we don't delete articles because they are stubs. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post and Charleston City Paper pieces are both just blurbs, which do not constitute substantive enough coverage of him to contribute anything to the question of whether he satisfies GNG or not. Which means he's sitting on one GNG-eligible source, not three, and one source isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - one article in a local newspaper does not qualify as sufficient coverage. Nothing suggests that WP:MUSICBIO is met.--Rpclod (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rpclod: How do all the other sources in the article not provide significant coverage? Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three of the six "references" in the article had to be stripped right off the top: one was a link to the front splash page of a website rather than to any content about Seth Gilliard on that website; one was to a college student newspaper, which is a class of sourcing that WP:NMUSIC expressly prohibits, precisely because student newspapers give much more coverage to local acts of no encyclopedic notability whatsoever; and one was to a YouTube video. And of the three that survived, two are blurbs which cannot help to get a person over GNG as they aren't long enough to constitute substantive coverage. So Rpclod is right, we've got one GNG-worthy source here, not several. I'll grant that he was wrong about which source it was, but he was right about how many there are. That said, I see that there is now an attempt under way to add a better class of sourcing — so we're not there yet in terms of the article actually containing any substantive content about him beyond a statement of his existence (the new sources are still just being piled up as a contextless morass of "ELs", instead of actually being used to reference any actual content improvements), but I do want to reiterate the part of my nomination where I said that I am willing to withdraw this if Heymann arrives. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the sources Winner provided, i was able to dig up this source. He appears to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the sources I added are sufficient to meet MUSICBIO. Everymorning talk 00:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements made to the article, Passes NMUSIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I struck my delete !vote based on the additions. I note that there are several deadlinks. Some live reliable sources re college accomplishments would be nice. Also some of the facts contained in the external links could be integrated into the article.--Rpclod (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable musician making a mark on classical music. Significant improvements need to be made to this article. Ovo16 (talk) 13:58, 9 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. There is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 04:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Schindler[edit]

John R. Schindler (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 know John Schindler from twitter. Never met the man, but we have some similar interests/involvements. At any rate, I saw a few days ago that people who don't like his politics have been organizing there and elsewhere to maintain a hit piece on him at Wikipedia. He had a long career at the NSA/US counterintelligence, but so have thousands. He also shares his views now that he's out of government, mostly on his blog but occasionally on other websites as a columnist. He is like tens of thousands of people in this regard. In 2014 he ended up losing his job teaching at the US Naval War College after apparently sharing a racy picture with a woman he met online, who in turn shared it publicly. Bonehead. However, this is not a reason to lash a man to the Wikipedia pillory post. There are no biographies about him, in depth profiles in the high quality press about his life and times, anything that could allow for a fair biography of him to be constructed while adhering to Wikipedia's rules. The article stands as a way to get the first google hit for his name to be about him at his lowest. The sources are weak. (There are currently 16). In order:

1. A Telegraph article about the brief "racy photos" kerfuffle.

2. A brief bio (non-independendent) at a small website he writes at called The Interpreter.

3. The Daily Mail chuckling over his "penis picture."

4. A brief bio (non-independent) at a website he writes at called Business Insider.

5 and 6 - articles he wrote. Not articles about him.

7. An opinion piece taking issue with Schindler's opinions about Edward Snowden at a site called techdirt by a guy named Tim Cushing who uses the screen name "capitalist lion tamer."

8. An opionion piece at The Atlantic by Conor Friedsdorf, a staunch ideological opponent of Schindlers, that "storifies" a bunch of tweets between Schindler and Friedsdorf, with unflattering commentary from the later.

9. A "storifying" of Schindler tweets at an unsigned libertarian blog with almost no traffic (Alexa doesn't rank them) called Economic Policy Journal.

10. A storifying of a twitter argument between Glenn Greenwald and Schindler.

11. Another storifying of tweets by Schindler by Cushing ("capitalist lion tamer.")

12. Schindler's brief apology at his blog to his wife and friends for the pictures of his, well, junk.

13. A Gawker piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

14. A Huffpo piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

15. Another Gawker piece from the time gawking at the dick pic story.

16. A Daily Mail story storifying tweets from the woman sent the dick pics in which she says she regretted taking their flirtation public.

None of this is the stuff that a fair, neutral and accurate biography of a person can be made from. I am barely involved in Wikipedia anymore, and certainly my interest in this case stems from my acquaintance with Schindler. However, I've long argued that no one should be subjected to this kind of drive-by disparagement at Wikipedia. This page was created with the purpose of highlighting his embarrassment and immortalizing it. Whether one agrees with his politics is completely irrelevant (off topic, but I disagree with him on more than I agree). Dan Murphy (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

This is a newsworthy public figure, this article should absolutely not be deleted. Sixlocal (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Sixlocal, did you intend to begin your comment with "Keep"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Unbolded "keep", this is not your vote, it's further down. User:Sixlocal voted "should not be deleted", albeit in the wrong WP:AFDFORMAT. Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—

This nomination for deletion was made in response to a request for "assistance" by the article subject himself, to his twitter followers, among whom is the nominating user, Dan Murphy, who has a conflict of interest as an associate and ally of the article subject.

The subject, and the unflattering information about him, are clearly newsworthy. The scandal was covered in dozens of mainstream media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic; the references cited in the article are only a small sampling.

Furthermore, Murphy's above characterizations of the cited sources are highly misleading - most egregiously #13, which in fact isn't actually (primarily) about the sexting scandal, but instead documents the results of an FOIA request to NWC, which reveal that the complaints which triggered the investigation included a wide variety of allegations, of which the sexting pics were just one of many. Several of the other allegations were much more serious, with potential national security policy implications. This reference calls into question the conventional narrative that Schindler's resignation was actually about the dick pics, and complicates Murphy's narrative that the article should be deleted because it is solely about a lurid sexting scandal.

Additionally, Murphy's characterization of references 7 and 11 is very misleading. The source site, Techdirt, is not a self-published blog, but rather a widely respected and highly influential (though niche) professional journalism site. And #11 is not, as Murphy claims, simply storifying Schindler's tweets, but is in fact a detailed assessment of the lack of legal merit to Schindler's defamation claim, including quotation from a prominent 1st Amendment attorney. Murphy's only objection to these references seems to be that he finds the author's choice of "handle" offensive to his political sensibilities.

All Murphy's other sourcing objections seem to boil down to either "This was written by someone whose politics I disagree with" or "this is just about the dick pics scandal" which he apparently finds to be not newsworthy, contra the opinions of dozens of mainstream media outlets who covered it. In closing, I will reiterate that this nomination for deletion was made in response to a direct request by the article subject himself, and should be disregarded for that reason alone. Matterhorn79 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Matterhorn79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Comment. In contrast to your closing statement, we have a strong and frequent precedent here for following the subjects' wishes for deletion in borderline cases. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough independent reliable sources to show notability. Darx9url (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I almost always !vote to disregard deletion request by the subject, except for some exceptional cases where the continued existence of the article does harm,and there is no good way of fixing it. This is one of them. The notability except for the negative material is clearly insufficient for an article. The negative material would justify an article about any politician--which is a special case because of the relevance of public trust--, or an important public figure. Material abotu a blogger of borderline importance in a sexting controversy, or accusations of rude behavior, is blog material, not enecylopedia material. There's no way of fixing this, because there's no other notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In response to DGG, I would point out the US Naval Warfare College, where Schindler taught, is not just some kind of boot camp for new recruits, it's a college for high-ranking Naval officers, on a career track to become "brass". It was Schindler's job to train the next generation of the guys who will have their fingers on the proverbial red button, in control of the nation's nuclear arsenal. The "relevance to public trust" is extreme. Also, if you read the source FOIA docs provided in reference #13, you'll see that it wasn't actually just about sexting, or rude behaviour - there were other, much more serious allegations as well, including potentially unlawful activity. Matterhorn79 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)— Matterhorn79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Naval War college is an important institution to be sure, but he does not seem to meet WP:PROF. The accusation remain minor to the extent we would not normally include them in a bio in most professions. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I don't think WP:PROF is the appropriate standard to evaluate Schindler by. He's not JUST an academic, he's a former high-ranking NSA officer. NSA surveillance policy is a hot topic at the moment, and considering that a lot of pro-NSA rhetoric basically boils down to "Just trust us: we're not going to spy on you unless you're a terrorist", the character and judgement of NSA personnel is of great public interest.

Also, in addition to being a former professor and former spook, he's also a CURRENT public commentator and pundit: he appears regularly on cable news talking-head shows, and in print in mainstream publications, offering his opinions. If I were someone who had never heard of him before, I saw him on TV and googled his name to find out more about him, this is EXACTLY the kind of information I'd want to see in order to help assess his credibility.

Re: "The accusation remain minor to the extent...", that may be true if by "the accusation" you're referring to the "sexting" issue only. But you still didn't respond to my last point: that the FOIA reference seems to suggest that there was more to his investigation and resignation than just the sexting. I'd think that for a person in pretty much any profession, allegations that they harass, threaten (both with litigation and with "life ruination" via trying to get people fired), hack, and dox their competitors, would be considered notable. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (the dick pic stories), WP:PROF (no evidence of academic impact; certainly teaching at the US NWC or any other institution of higher learning is not enough by itself for notability), WP:PERP (not a major national figure so his alleged minor wrongdoing is not enough for notability) and WP:BLP (the sexual scandal aspect of the story fails both the balance and attack clauses of WP:BLPSTYLE and many of the sources are far from reliable). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, regarding WP:PROF and WP:NOTNEWS, see my response to DGG above. Regarding the WP:BLPSTYLE "attack clause": personally, I would be perfectly happy to remove all mention of the sexting aspect of the scandal and focus solely on the more serious allegations. But considering that the mainstream media coverage of the incident focused almost entirely on the sexting, it would be really difficult to edit it that way while sticking to acceptable sources. Suggestions would be welcome. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have reliable sources, WP:BLP requires that you avoid insinuating anything about "more serious allegations", both on the article and here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the relevant reliable source IS cited: it's reference #13 on the current version of the article. It's from Gawker, sure, but jokes aside, that IS an acceptable source per policy... and besides, it's just the FOIA returns they're reporting on that are relevant. Actually, now that I think about it, the cite probably should have gone to MuckRock, who actually did the FOIA, rather than Gawker. Matterhorn79 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That source looks far from reliable as a source about Schindler himself to me. All it does is reproduce heavily-redacted letters from an apparent cyberstalker. So unless you want to use it to source the existence of someone who doesn't wish Schindler well, I don't think it's usable and I don't think it should be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with media discussion of his work and ideas. Often cited as a "leading expert" or "expert" by media.[7][8][9][10] Wikipedia's right to be forgotten applies to people wanting privacy, not to those who're active self-promoters in the media but don't like what Wikipedia says about them. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with what User:Colapeninsula says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am frankly puzzled by the support from experienced editors for deleting this. Yes, it is something of a "hit piece", but Shindler is a highly political figure (there is an whole essay [11] in The Atlantic calling him out for being highly political, and for his pugilistic online style. But it is far from extraordinary for WP bios to be started or hijacked by people who hate a man, and his opinions. Undoubtedly, people who hate him were delighted when he lost his job over a sexting scandal; some seem to have expressed their delight by editing this page. The remedy is to expand the article with his accomplishments and keep the sexting incident in proportion. His book Isonzo: the forgotten sacrifice of the Great War is widely cited and apparently regarded as authoritative. He has a new book on WWI military history coming out in December. An awful lot of other authors drop footnotes to his book Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, some engage the book, as here [12], [13]. In short, he seems to be too notable as a security expert, military historian, and subject of a couple of widely covered controversies (sexting, and Snowden/Greenwald) to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat scandalized by the suggestion that because someone is a political figure, a hit piece is justified. Possibly the best approach will be to wait until his new book comes out and is reviewed, and then write a new article from scratch just mentioning the other material. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like use of the term "hit piece." The incident, although it clearly makes the subject uncomfortable, was widely reported. This is something that actually happened, not a rumor or gossip.

Also, even though the more salacious bits (the infamous sexting) have gotten more attention, there were other incidents of unethical behavior reported at the same time that are just as relevant. A public figure who is known as a strong advocate of surveillance invading the privacy of perceived personal enemies is probably just as notable as, say, an athlete who is revealed to use performance enhancers or an anti-gay zealot who is caught in a bathhouse. Kremlintroll (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC) — Kremlintroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't see anyone suggesting a hit piece is justified in any circumstances. certainly the person you are replying to doesn't seem to be making that point Little Professor (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article clearly needs work, but deleting it is overkill. The guy is clearly notable with a large media profile as has been pointed out. Edit it to reduce the focus on the dick pics by all means, but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. Little Professor (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Little Professor. The subject did not request deletion, just help. Let's give him relief he needs from dignitary torts. The subject is generally notable, with solid stories in many quality periodicals and secondary sources. The strongest possible oversight and protection are warranted here, with cudgels to be handed out by admins, and if need be, Jimbo Wales himself. But deletion is a last resort. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, John very much wants this article deleted. He was delighted when I mentioned this was a possibility - something he was unaware of. I don't think I mentioned that in my nomination, however.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you invoking WP:TNT, Dan Murphy? Bearian (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "tnt" means. If it is up to John, he wants no Wikipedia article. He doesn't want to be attacked by anonymous strangers.Dan Murphy (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When I performed my NAC, I foolishly missed the fact that the discussion had been relisted. Nevertheless, despite serious issues with neutrality and bias in this article, Schindler has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. North of Eden (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC) I was wrong; I've been swayed by the deletion arguments below. North of Eden (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article is a good example why we have a BLP policy. →StaniStani 22:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP. Dan Murphy's comments are well-taken, in particular the point that this article will inevitably serve to ensure that the highest Google hit for this individual's name will focus on an unfortunate but hardly noteworthy incident in his life. No one really deserves that—certainly not in this case, where there is no issue of public trust or other rationale for publicizing the embarrassing details. The subject's wishes (as conveyed by Dan Murphy above) also weigh heavily in my view that this article should be deleted; we're causing avoidable distress to someone for essentially no reason. It's not like deleting this article would compromise this site's goal of providing the sum of human knowledge; we'll be just as close to (or far from) that goal without this article. MastCell ^Talk 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per MastCell, Dan and others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but purge the article of gossipmongering and other content not substantively related to the subject's genuine notability. The fact that we have a significant cohort of editors who revel in posting all sorts of unflattering content about article subjects' personal lives even though its objective encyclopedic value is somewhere between roadkill and ratshit. The proper way to deal with that behavior is to ruthlessly suppress the content and, as necessary, remove the editing privileges from editors who refuse to comply with BLP requirements for high-quality sourcing and aversion to content about subjects' personal lives not properly related to notability. Giving in to such editors is just another signal that Wikipedia isn't a legitimate encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Ordinary civil servant with a dick pick brouhaha — BLP-1E, or thereabouts. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E. Also, notability is not established by a raw count of sources, but also must take into consideration the quality of those sources and the quality of the articles about the subject. OP establishes that the totality of sources are weak. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment' The 2 previous editors appear not to have taken into account the fact that reviews of Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad, and the seriousness with which scholars take both it and Isonzo: The Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War carries him past WP:AUTHOR. BLP-1E simply does not apply.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That he's written positively received books in his field does not, unfortunately, generate the biographical sources about him that would be needed to undo the use of this as a hitjob. While John is a well-regarded scholar, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth biography. And an embarrassing and brief indiscretion of no relevance to his professional life is now being used to define him (it's currently in the god damn lede) by anonymous, unaccountable and malicious people.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if a scholar or author passes WP:AUTHOR he gets a page, even with scanty biographical info. It's a separate question from whether he wants one. I agree here with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that the proper course is to keep the page up and reduce teh sexting stuff to a sentence with sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"That he's written positively received books in his field" is pretty much a definition of academic notability. His bio should focus on his work and its significance; in most cases, the "personal" section foe an academic need be little more than the bland "about the author" paragraph accompanying most of their works. Kardashian-class treatment should be reserved for those with great notoriety bereft of genuine achievement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if a scholar or author passes WP:AUTHOR he gets a page, even with scanty biographical info. That's a horrific and callous position. Fortunately, it isn't true, even by Wikipedia's own "rules." It's what Wikipedia calls a "guideline." Meaning it's non-binding and never universilizable. (Stepping out of Wikipedia-world, the poor writing and thinking on display at the "AUTHOR" guideline is extraordinary). As it stands, this article was created because John had an embarrassing and irrelevant incident, and the editors of the top google hit about him are solely interested in preserving it to cause him pain. Further, there are no sources available, under Wikipedia's rules, to write a full and complete biography of this man. If you want to argue that he must be cursed with a humiliation shrine curated by "Matterhorn" and "Kremlintroll" and whatever internet weirdos and sockpuppets of internet weirdos happen along when we all lose interest in this (I'm well beyond any interest in sticking a finger in any of Wikipedia's dikes for long) then be straight up about it.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG and MastCell. Wikipedia should not host hit-pieces on living subjects that barely qualify for inclusion in general. Leaving this article up without substantially expanding the content (apart from the sole negative event) is no different in effect than keeping an attack page "because the rules say that we can." The real-world implications of this piece should not be ignored. Evangeliman (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is basically a tabloid gossip column entry, not an encyclopedic article. People are pilloried every day on the internet for stupid nonsense, are we to have articles about every Tom, Chris and Sally who has written a book who then showed someone a nude selfie? Pathetic. And Gawker isn't a reliable source, so those ought to go. How many other of these sources would fail WP:RS? And while we're at it, let's discuss WP:UNDUE. People claim this guy is notable enough to have an article here based on the WP:AUTHOR guideline. So, is he notable for his writing or for his penis pics? If he's notable for his writing, then the penis pic garbage is flagrantly in violation of UNDUE and needs to go (and after that, what content do we have?). If you're claiming he's notable for the penis pics, then the article needs to be deleted per BLP1E. Please pick one. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find the arguments of DGG and The Master convincing enough. Given there clearly isn't enough coverage of him to write a complete biography I can't see how he pass WP:GNG at any rate either. Anotherclown (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per additional discussion above; this is a change from a keep. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't believe that this person is notable in an encyclopedic sense. I'm concerned about BLP issues, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly no indepth coverage in sources. Per DGG. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I find the sudden influx of "delete" recommendations on an afd that had been open for weeks and was previously leaning heavily towards "keep", highly suspicious from a brigading standpoint. The fact that Dan Murphy has continued editing the article body despite his documented conflict of interest seems suggestive re: attribution of said brigading. It's perhaps worth pointing out that the article subject himself has a long history of brigading on twitter: summoning his followers to file false abuse reports against his critics in a (frequently successful) attempt to get their accounts suspended. This behaviour should not be rewarded.

In response to some of the recent pro-deletion arguments:

• Notability: although already discussed above, it would appear that some of the new commenters didn't read before recommending deletion, so lets reiterate: his notability is not due (solely) to his work as an author/academic, and certainly not due to the fact that he took some dick pics. He is notable due to his being a former high-ranking NSA officer and current public commentator, both in print and TV media, often put forward as an expert on SIGINT and surveillance policy. His frequent indiscretions (of which the dick pics were only one - references to others having been removed due to vandalism by Dan Murphy, the WP:CONFLICT conflicted user who also created this afd) are highly relevant to public trust issues, both to his credibility as a public commentator, and NSA's credibility in their claims that they hire personnel of sufficient responsibility, maturity and discretion that they can be trusted with near-unlimited power.
• "this article will inevitably serve to ensure that the highest Google hit for this individual's name will focus on an unfortunate but hardly noteworthy incident in his life" - If you do a google search on his name, you'll see that articles covering the dick-pics scandal are already the top hits, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, unless he does something else even more newsworthy and clickbaity, which seems unlikely. Having the top hit instead be an encyclopedic article which documents both the positive and negative aspects of his career would seem to be a step up from that status quo. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing Dan Murphy of being a vandal violates WP:NPA. Stating that the subject of this article is unlikely to surpass the coverage of his indiscretion as a life achievement is a violation (at least in spirit) of WP:BLP. All of your contributions to Wikipedia so far are about John R. Schindler. I'm beginning to think you might want to study Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies, which are conveniently linked at the top of your user page.→StaniStani 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. My response:

• Re: "Stating that the subject of this article is unlikely to surpass...", you've misunderstood my remark. I simply meant that it is unlikely he will be involved in anything as clickbait-y as a sex scandal again, and it is therefore unlikely those news articles will ever get pushed out of the top results of a search engine whose results are based on clicks.
• Re:"Accusing Dan Murphy of being a vandal violates WP:NPA", after consulting WP:VANDALSIM, I concede that that was perhaps imprecise terminology, given that "Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Aside from that, however, I assert that my statement was entirely in keeping with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Removing unflattering, well-sourced (meaning the FOIA docs, not Gawker) content which is relevant both to the public interest and to the notability question, by a contributor who is on a first-name basis with the article subject, is clearly not kosher for a variety of reasons. Pointing this out is commenting on the content, not the contributor.
• Re:"All of your contributions to Wikipedia so far...", as stated in my bio page, I have been contributing to WP for years, on a wide variety of topics, but have simply never had reason to create an account before, as I have never before had an issue with my edits being reverted.

I notice that you declined to comment on the suggestion that this afd is being brigaded. Can I ask how you came to be involved in this matter? Did you come upon it organically via the afd listings? Was your participation solicited by any third party? --Matterhorn79 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer the last one. I follow defense issues blogs, and am not a fan of Schindler's politics. I Googled him a few days before this AfD began and discovered the Wikipedia article. I didn't like the emphasis on the scandal over his relatively obscure writing career. Dan Murphy created this AfD and I watchlisted it. I mentioned this mess to a friend, and a discussion began on a forum I frequent. Then I gave my !vote. If you look at my history on AfDs, I generally am protective of the BLPs of non-public figures. No one has solicited my participation.→StaniStani 02:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candid response. Do you by any chance have a link to the forum thread you mentioned? I'd be curious to see it. As far as you are aware, have any of the incoming contributors to this afd originated from that forum thread? I ask because it seems possible that it may have been responsible for the apparent "brigading" effect I noted above, even if that wasn't your intention. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Matterhorn79 just created their account a month ago and their first edit was to the article in question. All their edits have been to the Schindler article or to this AfD. I'm wondering if Matterhorn79 has any prior accounts and what his/her connection may be to the subject of the article? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's possible for admins to see IPs of logged in accounts, but if so, they should be able to confirm that no other accounts share this IP, and that it resolves to a residential broadband IP block. --Matterhorn79 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matterhorn79 states they were an IP editor for some period before their edits were reverted, so then created an account.→StaniStani 05:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, notability outside "dick pic" event is not established by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. meets WP:BASIC, ie. "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", earlier reason given in this afd for deleting the article as subject has requested is not appropriate, as they are a relatively well known public figure, see WP:BIODEL. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Google Scholar suggests Schindler is notable as an academic. Isonzo: The Forgotten Sacrifice of the Great War shows 23 citations. Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qa'ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad shows nearly 50 citations. His "Defeating the sixth column" article shows 23 cites. His academic career is more extensive than the article reports; a 2005 Naval Institue Press book to which he contributed describes him as the "Naval Security Group's command historian" and notes he's taught at three universities. Given the flimsy credentials we accept as demonstrating notability in other areas, it's hard to see a reasonable basis for denying it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:BLP1E and per DGG's arguments. Rlendog (talk) 18:25, 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 keep. The article was improved while this discussion was going on, and all later !voters agrred to keep it. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lori St John[edit]

Lori St John (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)

Blatantly non-notable subject per WP:GNG and WP:PROF. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Poorly sourced vanity piece fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity article unsupported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - There is media coverage under her maiden name, Lori Urs. Her book being optioned by J. Miles Day, producer of the Carrie remake and the current series the Strain, is also notable. I would probably vote weak keep if the media coverage was properly integrated into the article.Timtempleton (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My search for "Lori Urs", (married name) did not produce much [14]. User:Timtempleton, can you show us what you found? Sources don't have to be on the page to support keeping the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good timing - I just added some news from the NY Times. There's even a hostage standoff! Here's the Google results page - links from CNN, Denver Post, etc.[[15]] The Post reported that the marriage was likely so Ms. St. John could get access to the DNA evidence. Interesting story - you never know what you're going to stumble upon on Wikipedia!Timtempleton (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/nejccc25&div=14&id=&page= BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Editors: To address the question of the notability of Lori Urs (now Lori St John) I will be discussing some of the editor’s comments in general so as to offer additional information of which I felt was too voluminous to include in the article. I have read both the Wp.Gng and Wp.Prof., as well as the entire section on notability. It is because Lori St John is notable that I have taken the time to include this article. If you have a comment or concern about something please just ask me and I can provide support for all the facts stated in the article (which I believe has already been done). Please avoid generalizations and be specific so that I may address your concerns. Thank you.

Ms. St John was not just referenced in articles about wrongful convictions, it is because of Ms St John that the death row case of Joseph O’Dell became an international cause, reaching millions of people around the world. That is not my opinion, but a fact that is referenced in numerous secondary sources. I have included below for your reference sources about Lori Urs. Having read her book, she was given a tour of Italy similar to that of Fidel Castro (quoting a newspaper source) when the Italian Parliament personally invited her to meet the countries highest officials. Her work led her directly to Pope John Paul II who personally invited her to the Vatican for a private meeting to acknowledge her work in trying to save Joseph O’Dell, a death row inmate who was largely unknown prior to the appearance of Urs. I have referenced sources that independently support this.

Regarding WP-Prof, Ms St John was the founder and director of the Innocence Project for the Rutgers School of Law, where she worked for over 4 years teaching students under the constitutional law clinic. Her published law review article has been referenced in the article and was about the subject she is known to have expertise in. Known as an expert in her area, she was invited to convene the 50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights in Florence, Italy, representing our country amongst 1,000 people from around the world. Present at the meeting was former Attorney General Ramsey Clark (see a photograph on www.loristjohn.com under photos). In addition, the Colorado Bar Association offered her full CPE credits for her continued education requirements as a result of the research and contribution to the legal profession she made in her book, The Corruption of Innocence, a Journey for Justice. She also spoke, just his past year, to the Essex Country Public Defenders Office in Newark, NJ about her book and wrongful convictions, for CPE credits for the lawyers in attendance.

Most importantly, Ms St John squarely falls within the criteria for notable persons under WP-GNG. In the subject-specific guideline she can be notable under organizations, books, events or web content. In general however, she has received significant coverage of which is not a trivial mention. Pursuant to the guidelines she does not need to be the main topic of the material, however, in many sources she is. The sources are all reliable and published in many forms, from and in more than one language (including Italian). There are numerous secondary sources that support Ms St John’s notability. In addition, one of the guidelines states she is “presumed” to be included if there is significant coverage from reliable sources. There is significant coverage in the U.S but also in Italy as well. My research into Ms St John reveals there exists hundreds of articles in Italy from December 1996 on, where she is referenced or the topic of discussion.

“There is verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.”

St John has used her book to help educate others in the area of wrongful convictions and has spoken at the Rutgers School of Law , the Essex County Public Defenders Office and many other places, including the ship The World, that travels around the world. Just recently she was invited to speak at the Florida Division of the International Association of Identification about her expertise in wrongful convictions and evidence. (this is an international organization of forensic scientists, crime scene investigators and analyst’s, and law enforcement).

If you require any further clarification I invite you to please contact me so I may assist you in learning more about Ms St John and why it is important to include this article in wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and dedication to this process.

Additional Sources: Mention of Lori Urs (now St John) in Secondary Sources

New England School of Law http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.6.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt

http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.3.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt, Urs referenced and acknowledged throughout the article as the reason one of 3, 000 death row cases became an international cause. See columns, 1, 3, and 4, noting: column 1: Days after the Supreme Court stayed O’Dell’s execution on Dec. 17, the New York Times reported “there can’t be many people left in Italy who never heard of O’Dell. The “nagging question” the story asked was “how this case was singled out for Italy’s’ national embrace. They need have looked no further than Urs, a driven woman who has dedicated her life to saving O’Dell’s. Column 2, O’Dell’s case was already known in Italy via the Internal... but but so too were the cases of more than 3,000 other Americans on death row across the country, and no one was demonstrating about any of them until Urs reached Farkas.” Column 3: After the story ran (front page story of the most widely circulated newspaper in Italy), Neri, a locally elected official representing the region of Umbria , called Farkas looking for Urs, and things took a political turn. Column 5- “ In January, Urs toured Italy to thank O’Dell supporter and drummed up more attention. Ferrarotti, the sociologist, appeared on a television show with Urs during the visit. He said Urs “captured the imagination of the Italian public at large. I was quite amazed myself. He said she was “very forceful, very attractive, obviously very dedicated and you know all of this put together somehow made an impact.” Leoluca Orlando, major of Palermo, made O’dell an honorary citizen.

Urs was invited by the Italian Parliament, who sponsored her trip, to tour the country of Italy. She began her tour in the President’s office, meeting with his aid, and then met with the President of the Senate, President of Constitutional Affairs and numerous high dignitaries throughout Italy, including doing a TV show with then Foreign Affairs Prime Minister Dini.

She was also invited twice to the Vatican, met the Secretary of State, who gave her a rosary from the Pope and was invited back to meet privately with Pope John Paul II, at the Vatican. She also received a phone call from Mother Teresa, in acknowledgement of her work, and invited her to stay with her in Calcutta. See The Corruption of Innocence, a Journey for Justice, pages 326, 338-9, 340, 441, 440-1, 417, 417, 427, 429,

World’s appeals can’t stay execution http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.5.html?scp=1&sq=Joseph+O'Dell&st=nyt

Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.loristjohn.com/TPI-1.1.html

About Urs... read how her mission led her to take extraordinary measures to obtain the evidence for posthumous DNA testing.

A Jersey woman’s fight for justice http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2013/10/when_injustice_proves_too_diff.html

Urs (now St John )and her story, purchased for the film adaptation by J. Miles Dale http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/fl-creative-production-idUSnBw105718a+100+BSW20130910

Lori Urs debates evidence with Commonwealth Attorney Humphreys in Virginia, http://www.loristjohn.com/RDT-1.4.html

New York Times; Front page Lori Urs’ website page was the first to be noted for its uniqueness, reaching people worldwide, where a petition was started to fee O’Dell. This same web site was the one picked up by 24 hours in Cyberspace (see wikki) for her notability in touching human lives around the world. see the wikki article about 24 hours in Cyberspace http://www.loristjohn.com/NYT-1.1.html

Washington Post see picture of Lori Urs with Sister Helen Prejean. She called a press conference and recruited the famous nun to join her cause to save Joseph O’Dell. http://www.loristjohn.com/NYT-1.1.html

International- Italy See http://www.loristjohn.com/ItalianMedia-5.1.html

Message to Lori Urs from Mother Teresa, who phoned her personally in August. http://www.loristjohn.com/Document-4.html

Lori Urs wrote an appendix to the U.S Supreme Court citing the factual errors in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in this brief summary she includes some of her legal research and investigation . http://www.loristjohn.com/Document-1.1.html

Book Reviews and other secondary sources

http://www.whomyouknow.com/2013/07/read-this-corruption-of-innocence.html#.VcJnls5cvyc

https://readersfavorite.com/book-review/the-corruption-of-innocence

http://www.lideamagazine.com/usa-book-expo-america-books-books-books-and-again-books-part-2/

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/books-corruption-innocence-joseph-odell-story

http://www.crimecasefiles.com/forum/life-on-death-row/47551-books-the-corruption-of-innocence-the-joseph-odell-story.html

See testimonials

http://www.loristjohn.com/index-bookreviews.html

Photographs of Lori Urs with Italy Parliament Members, and other High Dignitaries

Photographs with Lori Urs and Italian Parliament Members (and European Parliament member Leoluca Orlando (member of both parliaments).

http://www.loristjohn.com/index-3.html see also her book. Galaxygirl0505 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree article was in sad shape, with much junk. Was this revamped, now this as per WP:HEYMANN. Numerous reliable sources in article as of August 6, 2015 -- 13, with in-depth profile and interview of St John. Further, her sustained activism led the case to becoming an international matter of foreign policy, with foreign parliaments asking US system for changes regarding death-row capital cases. That Mother Teresa, the Pope, the city of Palermo weighed in, because of her efforts, and that anti-death penalty activism is a continuing ongoing thing, with her book, plus later incidents with other death-row types (eg Nutter), she easily meets the WP:GNG and her article should not face lethal injection. :).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Two other reasons: subject made great strides to encourage use of accurate DNA testing in capital cases, plus if any of us innocent Wikipedians ever gets wrongfully convicted and we find ourselves on death row, Ms. St John might marry us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - in current state, while still sub-standard, WP:GNG has clearly been met. We need a more well-rounded picture of this person, from background (family, birthplace, high school) to daily life (who was the father of the hostage daughter, for examample?) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. TNT is close to being a option but as it is improving let's go with GNG. The Record, 14 November 1999 had an article primarily about her, "PRISONER ADVOCATE FOUGHT HARD BATTLE" by DAVID VOREACOS. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 7 September 1997 has a profile on her, "PASSIONATE CRUSADE" by Jennifer Weiner (front page can be seen on St John's own website). There's lots in connection with the siege, such as "A siege over, a will unshaken" by Stephanie Ebbert in The Boston Globe, 5 August 1998. Her book also has a Kirkus review. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article appears to meet WP:RS requirements without a problem. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newk's Eatery[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)).

Newk's Eatery (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. The only citation to something like a news site is sourced to a public relations agency. The other citations are to Newk's or to allied sites. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are sources, that can be found. Article may be improved. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fairly significant restaurant chain in the south. Article may need improvement, but not deletion. None of the sources link to a PR firm or to allied cites. Newk's cite itself only sourced for direct menu content. Southrunner10 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually surprised that this company didn't previously have a Wikipedia article. Definitely legitimate, worth keeping in the effort of making Wikipedia sufficiently comprehensive.205.197.96.2 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly notable enough to deserve an article. This company is vastly more notable than the topics of many Wikipedia articles...2600:1005:B059:73B3:E4CA:A197:5578:53AB (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is worth keeping, there are legitimate sources to back it up.2601:141:1:2C8F:D86:90C1:8893:AA47 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sharp looking article, solid topic. No reason it should not be included in the Wikipedia universe.69.143.12.69 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Although the subject seem notable enough, currently the article fails to establish its notability. Accuracy of the article is also contentious as it heavily relies on sources from Nation's Restaurant News. However, I believe the article could be improved by expanding along with reliable sources, and by removing any promotional content. -- Chamith (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A chain of eighty restaurants is obviously notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is definitively notable. Article needs some work.199.52.13.132 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources do exist. The article meets all of Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. 50.201.184.131 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Although there is a case of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, I can see some sources like this in all of the PR crap, so it's likely notable. Esquivalience ^t 23:14, 10 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. Discounting the IP !votes, there is consensus to delete. Nakon 04:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MPCon[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)).

MPCon (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 org, no citations of significant coverage in independent, sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 20 July 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) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Only hits were local or just college paper stories, no depth of coverage. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ((ping)) me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 17:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Cited sources include the Detroit Free Press and Detroit Fox 2 News. Yes they're local news sources but major new sources and reputable. Dismiss them as local and you'll have to include the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.75.145 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. Local papers covering local things versus national papers covering national things: very different. It's telling of this event's larger import when mainstream source don't report on it. In this case, the audience is local. – czar 23:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure if there is supposed to be a new page for the discussion following a relisting or if it is appropriate for a commenter from the original discussion to reiterate their point but here it goes... This article is well cited, and sufficiently describes a notable event with over a decade of history. I don't believe the cited sources can be dismissed simply for being local. The Detroit Free Press is a reputable and reliable source and the 6th largest in the U.S. by Sunday circulation... not that size should matter. 12.97.75.145 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck your bolded !vote above. Comments are unlimited, but you can only !vote once in an AfD – czar 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... the article is mostly sourced to college papers, which are unreliable."Well cited" would mean that there are multiple, reliable sources. Even counting Detroit Free Press, there is no significant coverage. – czar 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm kind of confused as to why this is a thing. I check the wikipedia around this time every year to see if I missed the next event. I love attending this event and I don't know why it would go to deletion on Wikipedia. MPCon was one of the largest LANs in the United States and played a major part in helping one of the bigger non-profits that revolve around video games (Gamers Outreach Foundation). The history of the LAN is well none within the video gaming community and I have had my chances (and won) many professional tournaments out there sponsored by major organizations including Dell, Intel, AMD, ATI, Nvidia, etc. This kind of event doesn't really expand much further and even bigger events, the national media rarely covers it (I found a QuakeCON article from 16 years ago). The citations (reliable or unreliable) are there. It's not an opinion piece, but a piece about actual events, with actual people with photographic proof of each event. Don't know how much more reliability we may need. — 68.32.93.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If this was a famous event, you'd have no trouble finding coverage of it in reliable, secondary sources, even just industry publications if not "national media". But as it stands, there next to none. – czar 05:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no industry publications for LAN parties..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.93.223 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why there are no articles to write anything verifiable for this entry. WP doesn't keep article topics when coverage in reliable sources doesn't exist. (?) – czar 06:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's reliable sources for video games, I was able to find a reliable source (Technology Tell) and edited the main page to show the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.93.223 (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[16] only brings up MPCon in passing mention, and isn't about the event at all. – czar 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The event the article about is MPCon. It was a combined event as is noted on the list of events. I preferred the earlier cited article from MLive but they're pretty similar coverage of the event. 2601:40A:8000:2A:5CB:CF:F113:CF95 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the event and article are about "Gamers Outreach Foundation", as said in the title and lede. MPCon is just as incidental to the event as "CyGamZ". – czar 01:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just as incidental. It was MPCon XX a 400 person BYOC LAN with a console Halo tournament. Where charity proceeds went to Gamers For Giving run by Gamers Outreach Foundation. Sepharo (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I'm also 2601:40A:8000:2A:5CB:CF:F113:CF95.[reply]

• Delete the few sources provided are all local.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barcelona–Vallès Line. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabadell Metro[edit]

Sabadell Metro (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 articles refers to the extension of the Barcelona–Vallès Line in Sabadell as if a metro system was to be created in this city (although the Sabadell City Hall and the media have referred to it as such), which is certainly not true. Furthermore, the information contained in this article could be perfectly in a newly-created "Future" section of the Barcelona–Vallès Line article, since it does not need its own dedicated article. Mllturro (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Mllturro (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Into a future section of the Barcelona–Vallès Line article. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- As a project that was under construction, it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL but it comes close to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 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. Discounting the IP !votes, there is clear consensus for delete. Nakon 04:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Chauhan[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)).

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

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

The sources given in the article are mostly non-independent sources. The only reliable coverage in the article of use, and indeed the only significant coverage I could find was this, but given the scant coverage elsewhere I don't think he passes our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources given in the article are genuine and he is eligible to wikipedia. I am full support Indian Video Blogger Vasant Chauhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.43.251.23 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in addition to the sources Winner provided, He appears to be notable Check This — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.43.251.23 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — 103.43.251.23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. Most of the references are either from self-published or primary sources, which is not considered to be the reliable source. Note: Website hits, Google Search density or YouTube views cannot be used to establish notability. There is need of significance coverage (in depth) in reliable sources to establish notability. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i am in support of Vasant Chauhan because of he is future. http://www.quora.com/Who-is-Vasant-Chauhan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.60.96 (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 43.252.60.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Quora.com is not a reliable source, see the article Identifying reliable sources.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only decent coverage is in the itimes piece, and that's such a poorly-written blog that it doesn't really meet WP:RS. YouTube hits show popularity, not notability. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost no coverage in news. Author is SPA. Claim to notability that Lalit Modi shares his videos doesnt seem to be valid for WP:N ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim of notability in the article, no coverage anywhere, web searchews turn up youtube videos and social media Kraxler (talk) 17:49, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flitfire[edit]

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

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

Doubtful notability, fails WP:GNG. Seems to be connected to just one event and the split off from Piper J-3 Cub looks to be done in anger, not on arguments. The Banner talk 22:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to discuss Flitfires in depth on the J3 Cub page & the work kept getting deleted. So a stand alone Wiki page on Flitfire aircraft was created. Nid.29 was informed and immediately nominated it for deletion. That's the epitome of "Edit Warring."

Flitfires, unlike regular J3 Cubs, were only built for 2 weeks in April 1941 and there were only 49 built. They have a unique history. Data from many articles were gathered & everything discussed in this Flitfire article was cited back to independent, verifiable sources. As a courtesy, the Flitfire section in Nid.29's J3 Cub page was restored back to its original content.

Wiki's WP:GNG says the following:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage"

"Reliable"

"Sources"

"Independent of the subject"

"Presumed"

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article."

To this end, there are many separate, independent, verifiable, reliable Flitfire sources in books, magazines & various web pages. No where on Wikipedia is the Flitfire discussed in depth besides this article. These external sources are now brought together on one page in Wiki & all data cited.

Finally, Nid.29 talks about this article as having "overly flowery language" but he does not provide even ONE EXAMPLE of "overly flowery language" used. Also, he does not give an example how the language is "non-neutral". Simply making these kinds of statements does not make them true. Perhaps Nid.29 sees "overly flowery language" only because he's deduced I'm a woman from my user name. Perhaps he's opposed to a woman contributing to aviation articles in general on Wikipedia? I'm an engineer and a pilot, but Nid.29 chooses to see a woman who writes with "overly flowery language" for "non-neutral" articles.

A more egalitarian gesture may have been to objectively read the article & suggest improvements, rather than citing "overly flowery language" & nominating it for immediate deletion.

The article on the Flitfire aircraft is clear, concise and well cited. I stand by it.

Cubgirl4444 (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cubgirl, does the opening sentence 'When speaking of the brave Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots who repelled the Nazi invasion of their homeland during the Battle of Britain, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "Never was so much, owed by so many, to so few"' count as 'flowery'? I'm UK and that intro makes even me reach for my cliche-swatter.Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "When speaking of the brave Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots..." bit is a direct lift from here.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever 'lifted from', it's off topic and unencycl stylistically, the subject though is of interest and covered quite well in the J-3 Cub article.Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disputing that the text in question was unsuitable - I was merely pointing out that it would have to be removed or rewritten anyway to remove copyvio.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that text has been removed from the article as a copyvio from [17]. The article creator has reinserted it once.Nigel Ish (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is worth having a sentence or two in the J-3 Cub article, but not this amount of coverage. The article has been written as a magazine-style article and not as a an encyclopaedia article. I know this can be fixed with editing, but I don't think it's worth the considerable effort required - the subject would remain insufficiently notable to meet the GNG no matter what tone is taken in the article. YSSYguy (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge useful content not already there into J-3 Cub article, possibly redirect.Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into J-3 Cub. -Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - separate article unnecessary. Ensure adequate coverage in the J-3 cub article and delete.--Petebutt (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this section! Newbie to Wiki.

The folks at the Piper J3 Cub site do not want this data there. I tried to add it to their Flitfire section several times but everything kept getting deleted. So this separate page was created, and within 2 hours it was nominated for deletion. It's been a WIP since then but I've finally gotten it where I want it, with much aggravation, because I didn't understand what was and was not allowed.

Anyway, my preference is to just delete this rather than put it on a site where the info is unwelcome, or worse yet, would be butchered. I can share the Flitfire data on a private web page, which I'd prefer to do rather than merge it.

I wanted to familiarize folks with the rich history of the Flitfire but I'm not sure anyone on Wiki is that interested. But try flying one into an FBO where you're unknown. Then everyone wants to know about it. "Why is your cub not yellow?" "Is this an L-4?" "No silver Cubs ever came out of Lock Haven." "Your cub can't be a 1941; they didn't make cubs during the war." etc., etc. My intention was to be able to direct folks to a site for them to read up on Flitfires to answer their questions. That goal can be accomplished via a private website.

Also, my understanding is I could never put copyright photos on the Wiki site, even with "special permission". (I've contacted several companies to get special permission to use their pictures.) On a private Flitfire web site I could post these old photos (with their permission). Without the old photos, this article loses a lot.

As far as the flowery language: it was taken directly from the EAA article. I have reworded it since but the language did make me aware of the dire situation in 1940 and the spirit of the people back then. The Battle of Britain & Churchill's speech is necessary to explain the cub's history. One must realize that this is not a technical article. I didn't discuss wing span, best rate of glide, empty weight or the capacity of the gas tank, in gallons or hours.

My preference is to read an encyclopedia with language that is not dry, but that's a personal preference and may not be shared by many folks.

Delete Not Merge for this article is acceptable me.

Thanks everyone for your input. It's been eye-opening. Cubgirl4444 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - at this point in time the subject seems notable and there are enough refs and possible text for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. As it sits the article has a lot of issues, mostly that it is written in "fan" language more than encyclopedic language, but this can be fixed once this AfD is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a technical article. It's historical. In response to Ahunt's comments, I tried googling "encyclopedic language". Nothing came up. Apparently it's a term esoteric to Wiki. Could someone please define "encyclopedic language"? I'd like to know more about the proposed "fix" of the work. What would be taken out? What would be added? What would be changed? Because there are too many unknowns, I vote Delete

P.S. I just found out that all the messages sent to my email from Wiki went to SPAM... I'll fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are looking for is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch which gives some guidance about the tone and sort of language we use on Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia and so the tone is formal and avoids jargon, bias and fandom and also promotional language. We are here to describe subjects, not to promote them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually the current version, as of now is pretty good for language, most of the early fan-type language has been cleaned up and I just cleaned up the last of it. I would recommend that anyone who indicated "delete" earlier have a re-read of the article now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems well sourced, there is a good bit of history here. There is a lot of secondary information here that is not completely approriate (the "Never have so many..." quote from Churchill is overkill); but with a good clean-up, it would make a decent article. Scr★pIron^IV 18:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most issues have now been resolved and they do appear to be sufficiently notable. Encyclopedic language refers to a neutral style with a minimum of adjectives and adverbs, something that a lot of aviation writing in the US fails miserably at whether from the EAA or most of the popular aviation magazines (a heritage that came from pulps doesn't help there), but that just helps ensure it gets rewritten in a cleaner style that is more readily understood by people whose first language may not be English, and makes automatic translations more likely to be comprehensible.NiD.29 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This topic is not notable enough to stand alone. The appropriate amount of material already exists in the Piper Cup article so there is no point in merging back in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we are not talking about a single aircraft, but a group of aircraft that was notably donated to the effort. Seems to be well sourced. --rogerd (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Much work has been done on this article since this AfD was started and the article now meets WP:N and is properly referenced. It is also long enough for a stand-alone article. Editors who earlier indicated "delete" are encouraged to read the article again as it now is and reconsider their previous positions. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still it is not a separate plane but just a special edition. As a plane, it does not warrant an article. But I can live with a new title like "Piper J-3 Cub Flitfire Fundraising" or something similar. The Banner talk 11:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I somewhat agree the airplane is a variant of a J3, if you consider a different paint scheme a "variant". However, the Flitfire Brigade is an historical event that separates them from other J3's. The words of Churchill are Churchill's and expressed tremendous gratitude Brit's felt for RAF pilots who fought in the Battle. Note the Spitfire was perceived by the public to be the RAF fighter of the Battle of Britain. One cannot discuss Spitfires without discussing the Battle of Britain. (See Wiki article on "Supermarine Spitfires".) The Battle and Spitfire Aircraft were the catalysts for Piper donating 49 Cubs to the RAFBF and naming them "Flitfires". People should be exposed to the Flitfire Brigade, regardless whether it was 49 Cubs, 49 cars or 49 cows that were donated. The event's conception, highly publicized charitable drive, the maiden formation flight and mass landing are worth remembering; if not here, then somewhere else. Please don't get hung up on the fact the charitable donations happened to be Cubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubgirl4444 (talk • contribs)

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. Delete and Salt. Nakon 04:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Olander[edit]

Jannik Olander (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. The refs do not seem reliable. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed. Not notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Acknowledging everything, I believe deleting outweighs everything else and my searches found nothing convincing with the best here (low coverage similiar to Nialaya Jewelry). SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - if this is to be recreated YET AGAIN, it should be done via Articles for Creation to make sure that any recreation is absolutely solid. Having voted Keep/Weak Keep originally, I do believe there's potential for an article here BUT it needs to be done properly. Mabalu (talk) 17:12, 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. Nakon 04:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saman De Silva[edit]

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

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

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSBIO. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changes or additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community DilJco (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whether the subject is popular in Sri Lanka or not, the onus is on you to establish their notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, subject's notability is already established with available references and will be further improved.DilJco (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG -- Chamith (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, as stated previously. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Delete - subject is considered the king of Bayila in Sri Lankan culture.DilJco (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no evidence supplied to collaborate claims that De Silva is the 'King of Baylia'. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 6 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. Nakon 04:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sudath Gunasekera[edit]

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

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

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changesor additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community. DilJco (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC) User:DilJco is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Comment, whether the subject is popular in Sri Lanka or not, the onus is on you to establish their notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apart from being popular, subject is the President of the Association of Sri Lankan Neurologists (a Notable Professional Institution in Sri Lanka - Highly doubt it will be notable in other countries). Ludicrous to ask for word by word citations but shows least some ones talents in tagging.DilJco (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just being the president of an institution does not automatically make an individual notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator and per WP:GNG. -- Chamith (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unremarkable medical professional.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:41, 8 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. Nakon 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoners' Friends' Association[edit]

Prisoners' Friends' Association (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)

Seemingly non-notable organization with my searches finding no good results at all aside from this (Books) and search with the Chinese name found nothing as well. The only source are the group's websites and basic information leading to not much of an article much less notability (locally or universal). The article has been trimmed several times and I frankly see no further improvement therefore delete. @Moonriddengirl, Senator2029, and DGG: are welcome to comment. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no evidence of notability, but I cannot search properly for Chinese organizations. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am prepared to accept this association satisfies GNG due to the coverage in GBooks. I would at least expect this to be merged and redirected to a broader article on the prison system of Hong Kong, or to the article on Tsuen Wan, where it is located, rather than being deleted. James500 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Notability cannot be substantiated. Senator2029 “Talk” 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete run-of-the-mill busybodies (do we have an article on "crime victims' friends' association"?), only ref in the article is their own website, web searches turn up trivial mentions and directories, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Pérez (software developer)[edit]

Fernando Pérez (software developer) (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)

Sources either are directly related to the subject or only mention him in passing. The only article that directly deals with him is the Infoworld article, but that's basically a interview transcript. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Free Software Foundation Announcement is the most relevant article establishing notability of the subject. Until the addition of the page being discussed, the subject was the only historical recipient of the Free Software Award who did not already have a Wikipedia page. In light of this article and the additional secondary sources included, I feel the subject has been shown to meet the WP:NRVE and WP:GNG criteria. Jakevdp (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's always surprising how poorly Wikipedia deals with "notability" issues related to open-source software. The arguments for deletion always seem to relate to lack of "independent" sources and never seem to have much familiarity with how these communities work. Pérez works in academia and develops software widely used there; I think it makes more sense to think in the spirit of WP:PROF. What matters is that his work is widely discussed and highly influential - multiple features in Nature, even! - not that the articles aren't specifically about his life or that they contain interview material. Being worth interviewing is a sign of notability, after all. The Free Software Award really ought to clinch it. But I dunno, I use IPython literally every day and am arguably not "neutral" with regard to scientific computation (that is, I actually know something about it). Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Berkeley source is in-depth, yes he is part of the institution but they are an organization who can be relied upon to not print fluff. Also here's a Colombian article from his early student days when he won a national award, El Tiempo is the newspaper of reference in Colombia. Vrac (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Using Google Books with "IPython Perez" turns up multiple book citations including a sidebar about Pérez. There is also a nice article in Nature about IPython notebook and Pérez's work in developing it. Meets WP:ACADEMIC #7, substantial impact outside academia in their field. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:14, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of maps of the UK and Ireland[edit]

List of maps of the UK and Ireland (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 can't see this page as ever being anything but a directory, which is not something we should be doing here Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT - the way this is now is borderline worthless. It appears to be a listing of Wikipedia maps ie jpegs. If there were an article dedicated to historic maps, for example List of maps of Jamaica, it would be useful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The article is trying to be too ambitious in its scope and as a result is grossly incomplete. I do not think it is capable of rescue. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Is this topic notable? I don't think so. Are there any refs? No. I could be persuaded but right now this is a delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be attempting to be a directory of maps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 9 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 02:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ritz[edit]

Jeff Ritz (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:BAND Sulfurboy (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing at all to suggest better sourcing and notability with the best of my searches finding this (a few Indianapolis news links at second page). SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails just about everything. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A nom and two deletes with no arguement, why was this relisted Jaaron95, just contributes to backlog...Sulfurboy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You mean the A7 deletions made in 2011 @Sulfurboy:?--JAaron95 ^Talk 10:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, sorry, should have clarified, I meant two delete votes. It seems there is no interest in a keep or redirect, just curious why it was relisted. Not trying to call out your judgement, just trying to better understand the AfD process. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Relisted to attract more discussion. No harm in relisting.--JAaron95 ^Talk 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician, fails all criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, winning the "Rising Star Award at Bucks Grill @ Bar in Ashland, Ohio" fails WP:ANYBIO # 1. Web searches rather turn up links to other people of the same name... Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 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 keep. Nakon 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARISE Church[edit]

ARISE Church (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. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Mattlore (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep As a church with "campuses" in several NZ cities this has the feel of a small denomination (which we would normally keep). If one campus (congregation) occupies the largest indoor venue in a city each week, it may also be notable. However, it is difficult to be sure when there is little more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From a Wellington NZ perspective Arise is the largest church in the city. It meets weekly at the Michael Fowler centre - seating over 2000. While this alone does not make it notable in the media, from a religious perspective it is. The article needs a major tidy up NealeFamily (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major church. Not hard to source. This is the sort of AFD that could and should have been avoided by a proper WP:BEFORE. Sourcing now, not a difficult task since the church has been covered in New Zealand's major newspapers. See, for example, this profile of the Pastor [18] from Radio New Zealand. More sources now on the page, making Nom, earliest !vote obsolete. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erfworld[edit]

Erfworld (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. The one claim to fame is an appearance in a top ten list, but that year Time decided to make fifty top ten lists, compiling all the trivia of the year because they could. Certainly does not satisfy WP:GNG. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The article as it stands is actively terrible, almost entirely dedicated to in-universe information, character descriptions, and plot summaries. If kept, the content needs culled. But hidden amidst the (dare I say it) cruft, are some relevant sources. Time's Lev Grossman praised the webcomic here; he included it (admittedly with nearly the same description) in his Top 10 list of 2007 webcomics. That Time saw fit to have Top 10 lists in a large number of categories, as the nominator observes, does not make it any less of a reliable and respected source for journalism. The NPR story from the following spring is clearly significant coverage; the direct link to NPR is not working for me at the moment, but the story is available via the Internet Archive. I'm prepping to leave for a business trip, so I can't speak as to whether the mention in Dragon Magazine 354 is significant coverage, although it is certainly independent coverage in a reliable source (I can pull a copy of it when I get back if no one else has before then). And finally, although notability is admittedly not inherited, there's some mention of Erfworld in various media sources in connection with Arthur Chu, who did voice work for the Erfworld project prior to his famed Jeopardy run. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs work, but I don't feel that the deletion nomination is valid. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Human.v2.0. The comic has been going on for some period of time and has been covered in part by various sources. It also has its own set of praise and controversy. I'd prefer the article lean more toward those elements rather than descriptions of characters, but in either case I think it should be kept. Guyanthalas (talk) 18:57, 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 keep. This does not rule out a possible merger, which may be further discussed on the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task View (Windows)[edit]

Task View (Windows) (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)

Single feature of a recently released product, not notable independently from Windows 10. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC) In its current state, this article is just a brief description of the feature, followed by an unsourced original research piece documenting how many other operating systems Microsoft ripped off to create this feature. The coverage in other locations (such as a prospective Features new to Windows 10) is better-detailed. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)`[reply]

• Merge to Windows 10: per WP:NPRODUCT. Should be covered, but it would receive more context if merged. Esquivalience ^t 04:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite. Mission Control, the analogous feature in OS X, has its own article page on Wikipedia at Mission Control (OS X), so I don't see why we need to delete or merge this article. The current article is a mess though, reads more like an advertisement or user guide than an encyclopedic article, that can be taken care of with a rewrite.A.K.R. (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Single feature of a recently released product, however it's an important feature and it's a significant rework from its predecessor, so it is independently notable from Windows 10. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An important feature of what will be inevitably a widely-used operating system. Sources are fine. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transfer to WikiBooks. The core of this article, "§ Usage", is written like a manual, violating WP:NOTMANUAL. Second person pronoun and instructional tone is used freely. The other large section, "§ Similar applications" is a collection of indiscriminate info, violating WP:IINFO. That said, I read comments by Andy Dingley and FreeRangeFrog. They have responded to ViperSnake151's nomination; but I based my verdict on the fact that the article indeed has valid ground for deletion. (Those that I explained.) So, @Andy @FreeRangeFrog: If it isn't much trouble, please study those grounds again and consider overturning their verdicts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still keep. AfD is not cleanup (even though cleanup might be justified). Wikibooks is an odd no-mans land between Wikisource (external materials) and Wikiversity (uncontrolled lunacy), but I still can't see this fitting into any of those three. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: And I didn't propose a cleanup! I proposed a deletion. Nor I am using this venue as a mean of ransoming the writer into improving the "§ Usage"; indeed the section cannot be improved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Windows shell and taskbar. I have already pruned most of the article, expelling contents that grossly violated both WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTBLOG – I repeat, grossly. What's left does not meet the requirements of WP:SIZERULE. Because the merger is already discussed by two other parties here, I think it is an excellent compromise. (In fact, I might consider it even if the end result is "Keep".) Besides, the notability is still in question: Out of the four sources in the article, only one addresses the subject itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to nominator (ViperSnake151): This second relisting is your cue to take an action. You can rewrite your nomination (keeping the old version under <del>...</del>), notify related WikiProjects in their talk pages and invite their project members to participate. Of the top of my head, you can invite Indrek, Jasper Deng, Dsimic, Jeh, FleetCommand, Thumperward, Sonicdrewdriver. But, no pressure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I've noticed; we don't have a Features new to Windows 10 article yet... This would be a better location for such a summary. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have enough contents to fill such an article, Taskbar and Windows shell are still viable merger targets. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if there is enough coverage it would fall under WP:NOTABILITY the article would therefor have the right to exist. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This topic has wide coverage in secondary sources from what I've seen. The current state of the article is irrelevant per WP:CONTN. Mdrnpndr (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now at least. It is clear this content should exist somewhere. A discussion is currently ongoing about a larger split of all new features in Windows 10 into its own article, which would be the natural place for this to merge into. It makes little sense to merge this into Windows 10 and then split it off. This is extra work, and likely to result in the loss of some content (since the appropriate amount of weight at Windows 10 is less than the appropriate amount of weight at Features new to Windows 10). Pending the result of this discussion, we should keep this. ~ Rob^Talk 07:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My argument has been updated to meet the current state of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:52, 12 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. Nakon 04:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Severn Link[edit]

Severn Link (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)