< 4 August	6 August >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man's Curve[edit]

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

An indiscriminate and trivial list. The term as seems more apt for for defining on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can understand the nominator's point of view, but to me the list is not indiscriminate because the relationship to road safety seems evident when you look at the widespread use of the term by putting it into a news search engine. As for trivial, I disagree there, too – just click on "What links here" to see how many other articles refer the reader to this page. (Many other editors have taken the time to link to it.) Where the present article falls down is its lack of WP:Reliable sources. The term is also used in at least one foreign language – Spanish. The article should be improved by removing WP:Original research and finding good sources, but it should be retained. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes each individual dead man's curve independently notable, though? We have a curve residents of my hometown of Haines City, Florida we call "Dead Man's Curve", but it's not notable outside our town. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp
- I did a count of the references given on the curves currently listed: Eleven are referenced only with a link to google maps; ten have references to other sources; and eight have no references given. I'd consider a reference/link to a google map to be WP:OR as far as 'naming' a curve with this moniker. So that means only a third of the list is sourced. If we remove the original research, the list is substantially smaller. You're okay with that and still vote as a keep? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless an article is so terribly written and poorly sourced that it would be better to blow it up, we generally keep even mediocre articles such as this. Whole articles and entire books have been written on notable dead men's curves, which may be found easily, such as the old IRT curve at Broadway and 14th Street as is goes around Union Square in New York City, so the concept is notable. There's an old guideline that AfD is not for ordinary editing fixes. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, Can you help me out? Are there specific examples of "entire books written on notable dead men's curves" that you can give? I searched amazon and google books and I'm not finding any. (BTW, please don't point to books about the Jan and Dean song and say they are entirely about the curve in the road.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - PennySpender1983, searching for reliable sources about the generic term online would involve, in my sister's terminology, separating fly manure from ground black pepper. So I suggest looking for sources about individual examples, such as the Union Square (New York). For that one, I found these sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and a significant NY Times story in 2005. I also found passing mentions related to coincidental historic events at [6], in a bibliography, as well as a free-use image of the plaque therein. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bearian, As much fun as it would be to discuss how you see The Beginnings Of The Cinema In England,1894-1901: Volume 4: 1899, By John Barnes as a reference relevant to your point, I do see that you found a reference that can solve a request for citation in the current article. (See my edits in the article.) Thanks for your help in finding that. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the one in Marquette County, Michigan, that Dead Man's Curve is the subject of its own local historical marker, and it's the site of the first state highway centerline in the US, as noted by the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
    Kulsea, Bill; Shawver, Tom (1980). Making Michigan Move: A History of Michigan Highways and the Michigan Department of Transportation. Lansing: Michigan Department of Transportation. p. 10.
    Federal Highway Administration (1977). America's Highways, 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. p. 127. OCLC 3280344.
    Rogers, Frank F. (1922). Biennial Report of the State Highway Commissioner for the Fiscal Years ending June 30, 1921, and June 30, 1922 (9th ed.). Lansing, MI: Fort Wayne Printing. p. 6, plate I.
    Imzadi 1979 → 07:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nickname for dangerous road locations is used often enough in WP:Secondary sources to warrant being included in Wikipedia as an article. The New York Times is an example of a WP:Reliable, WP:Secondary source that uses the term. I do suggest a Move to Dead man's curve as this is a nickname and not a proper name. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article clearly has room for improvement, the subject is notable, as documented in earlier comments. Reify-tech (talk) 04:43, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian billionaires[edit]

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

Is this really what Wikipedia is for? WP:NOT says we're not just for indiscriminate blobs of information. That someone is both a billionaire (in US dollars...?) and a Christian doesn't tell you much. Their religion might be completely nominal and irrelevant to their business and wealth, or it may have an important role in their business life. Seems a strange combination. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that it is a strange combination. Delete per the "Lists of loosely associated topics" part of WP:NOTDIR.Vrac (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep. Forbes lists a few in this article, Christianity Today wrote about the Templetons, father and son, and the Christian Examiner devoted an article titled "Billionaire burger queen remains rooted in faith" to Lynsi Snyder. Though I'm not sure how they reconcile their faith with the whole "camel through the eye of a needle" bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are large numbers of similar random lists, such as List of Jewish feminists. Ideally they should all be removed. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether "Christian billionaires" makes sense as a hybrid- or sub-categorization (from either perspective, of subcategorizing billionaires by religion or subcategorizing Christians by status or accomplishment), let's not make assumptions about other lists just because we're not familiar with a topic. See Jewish feminism, Category:Jewish feminism, and Category:Jewish feminists (so hardly "random"). postdlf (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right, maybe that was a bad example. How about List of Jewish footballers instead? . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to do some due diligence before advocating deletion of anything. But again, let's stay focused here on this list. This whole thread is an irrelevant distraction. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if roughly 1/3 of the world's population is Christian, odds are about 1/3 of billionaires will also be Christian. That would be a list hundreds of names long (see http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/25/#version:static), and it would be constantly changing as net worths change. Add that to not being a useful list, and surely this is a delete. Case2394 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My examples are those who actively support Christianity, not those who are just nominally Christian. The criterion could be made more restrictive. That being said, upon further consideration, I'm going to add another "weak" to my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random list. Creator said those who "actively support Christianity" are only on the list and mentions "devout" alot. How are we to judge that? Most people would consider Rockefeller Christian in name only. Currently there are over 2,000 living billionaires, with 1,500 coming from predominately Christian nations. Well, after the Chinese stock market crash, cut the amount of Chinese billionaires by 50%. Bgwhite (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet Rockefeller donated a lot of money to Christian institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list if kept should include every person who was/is Christian who has ever been worth over 1 billion. That would just make the list unruly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps there is a database for such lists, but the subject doesn't meet the qualifications of an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwp08003 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of my thoughts are already expressed by above editors: random, wp:listcruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:07, 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 delete. I'll create the proposed redirect in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 18:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Key of Avalon[edit]

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

In doubt if this game is notable enough for inclusion. A quick check reveals 16k Google hits (effectively 172), a lot of them related. The Banner talk 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to indicate how this meets WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good at all. There are a few good move targets but it's probably best to delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article creator is currently indef blocked, and actively socking and block evading. Its not a speedy delete, since he made it before he was indef blocked, but Admin/closer, please be wary of any WP:SPAs. They could be socks. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Search revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Search proves weak. Fishy creation account etc.Shinerite (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Sega arcade video games. This is an obvious search term worthy of a redirect. Most of its relevant sourcing is offline but the little that exists shows that it was important for Sega: [7][8][9] (1up.com is a WP:VG/RS.) Also search without the "The". – czar 19:21, 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 redirect to StudentVoice. If StudentVoice gets deleted then the redirect will just get a G8 tag, which doesn't hurt anything. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 14:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke_Shore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luke Shore

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

I don't think this article meets WP:BIO: the subject doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, beyond involvement in low-profile charities. From the string of edits from a single account, I'd also suggest possible self-promotion WP:PROMOTION. Wikiminaj123 (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StudentVoice, though I do not think that is a particularly significant organisation either. This membership of a European organisation would seem to be taking part in the equivalent international organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would have said redirect as per Peterkingiron, but after researching the StudentVoice, I actually nominated that article for AfD, since I could only find a single independent source about that organization. I can't see redirecting to an article that may get deleted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 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 delete. Sandstein 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pingu (series 1)[edit]

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

What is this bollocks? 26 sections of unencyclopedic cruft. Each could be surmised in 26 sentences between them - the titles. The only interesting bits are the information about banned episodes, which is actually why I came here from Pingu. Pingu (series 2), Pingu (series 3), Pingu (series 4), Pingu (series 5) and Pingu (series 6) also require being correspondingly binned. Laun chba ller 21:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfD notices added for the additional articles. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Watch the episodes, instead. Unsourced and much too detailed for 5-min long cartoons. Kraxler (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot .... Unbelievably like the nom I can't actually describe any of this other than pure bollocks!, ~~This could all be shoved in to a "List of episode" type format which would be far more informative than this crap.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 01:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see we already have List of Pingu episodes so why isn't that in the correct format (IE like this), Anyway better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above editors. Info already exists in the list article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No opposition. No purpose. Shinerite (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Scr★pIron^IV 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a much loved children's cartoon. We have a lot of lists of episodes in WP, I am not sure why this is different from other episode lists. Why single this one out? I do not think it is as "unsourced" as claimed: there is clearly an implied source, from watching it on TV or DVD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly OR anyway. Have you ever seen Pingu? If yes, you would know that the episodes can not be described in such a manner as in this list. It's a stop-motion animation without discernable speech, inviting the children to watch and find out what it means, to train their imagination. To have one particular detailed interpretation is counterproductive, and is against Wikipedia rules (no OR). Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a question of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - many of those should be deleted as well. Scr★pIron^IV 18:05, 13 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) 00:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby kissing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a dictionary definition. This article should be deleted. Marsbar8 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lackluster little stub of an article, but there seems to be a lot written on the topic. A historical overview from Mother Jones. One of the topics discussed in a Human Communications Research paper on communication in politics. The Atlantic's take on the topic is firmly tongue-in-cheek, but it points to older print sources that maybe productive. Other sources discuss its use in more metaphorical terms. Broadly, I think there's an article to be had here, even if we don't have it here yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a stub and definitely needs expansion to move beyond the dictionary definition. But expansion is possible, so let's not discourage it just yet. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable, then it's always notable. Even Martin Van Buren and Vladimir Putin were caught doing it. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 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 keep per WP:SNOW, per snow-close at last week's AfD, and per the original discussion. This has already ~~had 7 days~~ been thoroughly discussed and consensus is clearly against deletion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil (lion)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTMEMORIAL This warrants a full 7 day discussion. Just because some people have an personal attachment to this story does not give it encyclopedic merit. Wikipedia is not a pop culture blog. It is meant to be a repository of the worlds knowledge. There are many things individual people may care about and want included but we must adhere to a strict standard and this random lion who had no article or notability before he was killed does not make the cut. It's time to rid Wikipedia of all these excess articles. While the article is well written the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion therefore this article does not belong on here. I don't care about how much news coverage it has received the media makes whatever it wants to be important no matter how irrelevant it is. This lion will soon be forgotten and replaced with the next story of the week. On many AFD's whose subject clearly and definitively does not warrant an article I see fanboys/girls of the subject making up random excuses or citing reasons that do not meet Wikipedias guidelines for it to stay. Enough is enough and we must defend Wikipedias integrity.I believe there are many who will agree with me and ask that this be allowed to run the full 7 days and see how many delete votes there are and the strength of the arguments made in the keep votes. Comet1440 (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep and rename back to Killing of Cecil the lion - that is what all of the coverage is about, it was renamed without consensus. The killing has led to significant, non-ephemeral, real world actions - from changing of policies about shipping trophy carcasses to legislation in Zimbabwe as well as discussions and analysis of the online mob behavior.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under either name. The entire event continues to have repercussions beyond the news cycle, and has been a signal event in discussions of trophy hunting, conservation, and poaching. It would be remarkable that someone seeking reference on this event of global interest were unable to find mention of it on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might also mention that the nominator's essaying and soapboxing seems to have little to do with Wikipedia and more to do with his emotions toward "the media". He says, "I don't care about how much news coverage it has received the media makes whatever it wants to be important no matter how irrelevant it is." He also appears to believe he can read the future when he says, "This lion will soon be forgotten and replaced with the next story of the week." A discussion over whether an article belongs on Wikipedia is fine, but trying to use such discussion to push one's feelings about "the media" is not really valid. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename - TRPOD says it all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event has proved to be more than just a one day-phenomenon, and has dominated its specific segment of the news (eco/animals) for the past week, coming onto the public from all different angles (human interest, but also politics and even legal aspects concerning hunting and extradition). In only a week's time, 14 different articles have been published on the main Belgian (Belgium!) news site about the killing of Cecil. If this event doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page, then the lines are blurred spectacularly as to what does.L E X commons (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rename. TRPOD makes valid points although I see little in the article about "online mob behavior". I think it is way too early for social analysts to assess the impact of the news of the killing. My question is, is having three deletion discussions in less than a week a record? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the online mob stuff hasnt been included, but its out there. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename, don't care. I argued in the last AfD for the old name, but sources keep asserting the notability of the lion so the current title seems apt enough. But this AfD is pointy and has about a snowball's chance in hell. Nominator appears to misunderstand what AfD is... it's not a vote and it's not a place to air grievances. Her insistence of keeping it open for 7 days demonstrates this well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TRPiD aka The Red Panda is Doomed makes a good suggestion. Wikipedia didn't think Cecil was notable until he was dead. Shame he wasn't called Horace. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as current name. The lion seems famous before his death. The death makes him more notable. The international reaction is immense, with airlines possibly changing their cargo and flight rules as a result. This is the third AfD in a week, which is now disruptive. Suggest speedy close, along with a moratorium on new AfDs on this article for six months or a year. Martin451 21:04, 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. Sandstein 18:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Low temperature electrolysis[edit]

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

Misplaced nomination — was placed at MfD by User:Jobava-ro, who says that "this describes technology that doesn't exist or is original research". I am neutral unless I comment below. Raymie (t • c) 19:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick look shows about 800 hits for the concept in Google Scholar, including two papers cited over 200 times. However the actual article seems to describe one specific application; the concept has also been responsible for most of the edits of User:Nulled in 2015. The concept may merit an article—I am not an expert in the subject–but in its current state the article does not seem appropriate. Raymie (t • c) 20:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible, even probable, to write an article under this title. What we currently have here is not that article. Simply put, the current content is either implausible or incomprehensible; it claims to describe a system wherein electrolysis occurs by passing current through nonconductive pure water. One source cited is absolutely a reliable source. Despite not being cited correctly, it is a paper in the Journal of Power Sources. The other scholarly article, in the Serbian-published International Journal of Electrochemical Science is probably marginally acceptable also. However, neither of these articles is about low temperature electrolysis. Neither of them discusses the apparatus described in this article whatsoever. And, frankly, neither of them support the claims they are being used to cite here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
It seems that Nulled has also been making edits like this or this or this. He is trying to link his article on Low temperature electrolysis in Electrolysis and Water splitting. Jobava-ro (talk page) 04:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally incoherent. Does WP:TNT purify radiation taint? Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cites no sources on this topic at all. shoy (reactions) 18:40, 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. The one "keep" opinion isn't exactly compelling. Sandstein 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Purcell[edit]

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

After I tidied the article up I planned on sourcing it but bar little mentions I can't find anything at all, (The article looked like this before I tidied it up), Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG, I would say she's mostly remembered for Emmerdale and Waterloo Road so could be redirected to either one of those if preferred. –Davey2010^Talk 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Emmerdale, Waterloo Road and Bernard's Watch are all good targets but I think it's best to delete for now (especially if BLP issues occur later). IMDb and my searches (the best here) show nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I added a few references, but they're only mentions, although she got a few one-line positive reviews. Needed are multiple in-depth accounts to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do hate seeing an article that has a bit of stuff on it getting deleted, can we over-time work to improve this if it's kept? CDRL102 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL102 - I would d honestly rather see it kept but so far there's only mentions and to be fair she's been in alot of tv shows so at this point she should have alot more than just mentions, Had this been a new actor I wouldn't of even nominated it but at the end of the day if there's no notability now then there won't ever be IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just think, if you go through many pages of past actors/actresses of soaps/drama series like WLR, Tracy Beaker, Emmerdale etc, you would find quite the same pages. For example, Holly Kenny from WLR, or Nicola Reynolds from Tracy Beaker etc and the list could go on really. I don't think - if there's backlog - deleting pages like this that have something to it is right, focusing on pages that are blatantly pointless would be more resourceful. CDRL102 (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is some coverage, but mostly in local regional sources (which in and of itself is not a bad thing), but none are substantial. And that's the sticking point. Davey2010's comment to CDRL102 sums it up pretty well, I agree that it's not a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 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 delete. Sandstein 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agostino von Hassell[edit]

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

This is a really bad article, though thankfully less bad after some of the worst was pruned. The subject appears to be a bit of a blowhard, that's not the problem: the article entirely fails to establish actual notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The strongest source is a profile in The Epoch Times. Not a major paper and most of the article is about the guy's relationship with his (unusually distinguished) ancestors. His notability has to rest on his books of military history, published with Howell Press [18] which may be a small, vanity imprint, anybody know for sure? What I can say is that I can't find any reviews of the listed books, or persuasive sources on the man or on his books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the article, but Howell Press was a small military history publisher in Charlottesville, VA in the late 80s and 90s. I have no evidence that it was a vanity house. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least 3 of the books are by significant social academic publishers: IOS, St.Martins, Sage, and at least one Alliance of enemies by a significant general publisher, Thomas Dunne, , --and that book has over 500 library holdings. The writing section needs trimming to just the books. Adnd of course we need to find reviews.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

But note that those books are co-authored or chapters in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find any sources about the subject? Teasing biographies out of sources that are not themselves biographical is a bit of a minefield. Guy (Help!) 08:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a review of his co-authored cookbook, Military High Life: Elegant Food Histories and Recipes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article subject is an author, so WP:AUTHOR applies. Any of the 4 tests there would indicate notability. 1) "Important figure" - no indication of that. 2) Originated "significant new concept" - no. 3) "Well-known work" - no. 4) "Significant monument" - no. The "reviews" of his cookbook are rather weak. The publisher sent a review copy to the Secretary of Defense and a standard response came back.[19] John Nagle (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability requirements for authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing dictates notability under WP:AUTHOR, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. There is nothing significant about him. The two sources are not reliable - both are freebie newspapers that have zero editorial independence (citing the Falun Gong/right-wing propaganda mouthpiece The Epoch Times makes somebody negatively notable, if that were possible). He's written some monographs, but there's no evidence they are cited widely; in fact, a Google scholar research shows between two and six cites per work, so he'd fail the prof test. Normally, the numbers of library holdings matter, as does DGG's views, but I'm skeptical in this case, since one would expect more than a couple of cites if it were held in 500 libraries. The gratuitous and trivial mention of a distant relative does not make him notable, either. Bearian (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, and as John Nagle detailed, does not meet any of the WP:AUTHOR criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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 keep. Nom withdrawn. Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratory for Analysis and Architecture of Systems[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Only claim to fame in the article is being "located near to other important higher education facilities". CNRS laboratories are very often created only temporarily (they have a 5-year mandate which usually can be extended only twice). More importantly, a Google search and a Google news search turn up what may be expected: articles published by lab members listing the lab as their affiliation and a handful of newspaper articles about accomplishments of lab members mentioning the lab in passing, but no in-depth coverage of the lab itself. Unless significant independent sources can be found elsewhere: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (COI disclosure: I did my Ph.D there in 2005–2008) This is a Carnot Institute and AFAIK the largest CNRS (public research) lab in France, so even though the current version of the article isn't more than a stub, it seems to me that we can come up with enough sourceable content for an article. I still have a few contacts there so I'm going to reach out to them to see if they can help me gather some materials and references. guillom 21:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The lab was founded in 1968 according to this. Significant coverage in Le Monde. Some other things with more than passing mentions [20], [21], [22], [23]. Vrac (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep on the basis of the additional information supplied above. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Thanks Vrac for finding those sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 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. Sandstein 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddylist[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG sourced only to an "amazing social media platform" press release and a blog source which is just a reprint of the site's CC-Attribution-licenced description of itself (which also forms the basis of this article). McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Still gathering information. Buddylist was featured on Examiner but the Author got deleted along with all their articles. Please give it a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG in its current state. Perhaps it could be userfied in a sandbox or draft space but I am not finding enough WP:SECONDARY sourcing to think that this could be upgraded to an article that meets WikiP's guidelines. BTW the addition of 'Page Protection" tags by the article creator when no admin had protected the page was not a good idea. MarnetteD|Talk 16:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - standard searches did not reveal any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Press Release has been added Located Here and is findable on google here added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other Press Release Found Here added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 3:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

High Pr4 Blog Article Here added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 3:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Press Release Here added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 3:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Press releases are considered primary sources per WP:NEWSPRIMARY and cannot be used to establish notability. Blogs should only be used when written by a recognised authority in the field, per WP:BLOGS, but your "High Pr4 Blog Article" is the one I mentioned in the AfD nomination as being a simple reprint of the site's own description of itself. --McGeddon (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like the author used Snips from Buddylist Wiki page. I'm not seeing how you are saying It is copied when they wouldn't even have a article unless Buddylist already existed to write about. Nomination for afd seems invalid. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the blog entry was copypasted from Buddylist's own site and wasn't even written by the blogger whose name was in the byline, then it plainly fails WP:BLOGS. You need to find some sources which aren't just re-using text provided by Buddylist. --McGeddon (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you are not trying to help this article more or less you are trying to make it fade away for some reason. According to Wiki's guide lines you suppose to help articles become better if it is legit. Guidelines also state minimal requirements is you have to at lease have 1 Google news archive which Buddylist does have. I am very new to Wiki and not 100% familiar with it yet, but If you have some kind of knowledge to make this article better then you should help improve it rather than keep trying to get it deleted. Couldn't some one make mentions on the Springfield Illinois page, or Social Networking Page, etc... I'm not sure how this all works and was hoping there would be some informative and helpful people. I am asking for help on this. I originally started this as a suggestion. I haven't had any help on this the whole entire time and I think for some one that never made a Wiki page before I am doing good and some one should help out with this. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now some one just deleted the screen shot for it that was given to me by the owner to use. This is not helping the Article. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name something concrete that will make this solid. I will make it happen. I'm not clearly understanding this secondary sources thing. Do you need this in news papers, Magazines, Bill boards, other bloggers? Please tell me something I can do to make this article be approved by Wiki. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the AfD nomination says, the article does not currently meet WP:GNG. Click that link and it will tell you what level of sourcing the article requires in order to remain on Wikipedia.

I've tried to help this article by looking for sources myself, but the only news coverage I've been able to find is unusable press releases, and unrelated articles which use the word "buddylist" to mean "list of buddies" when talking about other services (Windows Live appears to have a feature called a "buddylist"). I can't see that it meets WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The News Article Located Here is unusable? added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon please name something I can do to make this work. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do what ever it takes to make this article solid. Any help suggestions from admins to make this Solid? added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's more or less a speedy deletion candidate as an advertisement for a website that hasn't been noticed (yet). Sionk (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Sionk's post was removed by 24.12.27.232 (talk · contribs) which geolocates to Springfield, IL. I have restored it and I would recommend that, should this kind of thing continue, that a WP:RFPP be filed. MarnetteD|Talk 00:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No he is nominating for a speedy deletion for no reason. How is the History of Buddylist Advertising. If that was the case then all wiki's would get deleted. There is no promotion on it. Why would you encourage his behavior? 24.12.27.232 (talk · contribs)

I hope the owner of Buddylist will see's this and chime in. I don't get why every post on here is something negative. You guys must have some really awesome lives. JK If you can't say anything nice you shouldn't say anything at all. You guys are bullies. Instead of helping some one you just trash everything they do. 24.12.27.232 (talk · contribs) — 24.12.27.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sionk did not nominate it for speedy deletion. In stead S said it was a candidate for speedy deletion. That is not the same thing. BTW your comments on the editors who have posted here is in violation of WP:NPA and is not helping your case. MarnetteD|Talk 03:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank every one that tried to help the Wiki page for my company. They are not being bullies they just have guide lines and seem very strict about it which is understandable for it being a Online Encyclopedia. Do not be mad at the editors they are just doing there duties. It looks great Tommy but it still does need a lot more things added and more citations would make it work out a lot better. I appreciate every ones help with this. It may not be made into a official page today but in time it will eventually be a very good notable service listed on here. Tommy if that is your friend posting on the Ip tell him to not interfere with this. I do not want bad publicity. A message to MarnetteD Please do not reflect the Ip user's action against any one else but the Ip user. I am actually amazed that a user without a name can comment on here. I never really been a wiki person and I never been the type of person to use services that the masses want you to use which is the whole point of my Social network. I want people to stop using main stream stuff. Alternatives is the future and will always be. Thanx for every ones time. Have a nice day. Joshdufer 8 August 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Josh I will still keep trying to make this better. I guess back to the drawing board. added by Tommy62702 (talk • contribs) 4:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete - and thanks to Joshdufer for understanding the process. A news search didn't reveal any sources which go to notability (most are simply to the generic term "buddylist", and not to this company). Remember that not meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability are not a judgment on the validity or usefulness of the company, they are simply thresholds which need to be met in order to provide some sort of consistency for inclusion. There are literally millions of companies without Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure if anyone posted a link, but WP:GNG and WP:NCORP clearly show how notability is met. WP:RS gives a good description on what does or does not qualify as a reliable source. Also remember, for notability purposes sources need to be independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nawrocki[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All coverage, such as it is, is from dependent sources. Yes, he's an animator -- for VeggieTales. Yes, he's a writer -- for VeggieTales. Yes, he's a producer -- for VeggieTales. Yes, he's a voice actor -- for VeggieTales. Yes, he's founder of a production company -- for VeggieTales. Heck, in the early days he was probably the coffee guy, janitor, receptionist, driver, production assistant, director, human resources director and a whole lot more. We need significant coverage in independent resources. We don't have any. SummerPhD^v2.0 12:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as somone who previously Prodded this article for exactly the same reasons as Summer has brought this here. The Dissident Aggressor 18:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: He's the co-founder of Big Idea Entertainment, a company that was acquired by DreamWorks Classics for nearly $155 million. He has been covered ad nauseum in multiple significant primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Including, but not limited to, Patheos, Catholic Digest, behindthevoiceactors.com, and covered in more books than I can count. His primary character, Larry the Cucumber, honestly requires an article considering that character has made significant contributions to contemporary Christian and pop culture. Ruski22 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)— Ruski22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - as per nom. I too saw this at an earlier stage and thought there must be something notable here, but I still can't find it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick Google search and perusal of results shows a substantial amount of media coverage. The subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to say keep as he's well known for Big Idea alongside Phil Vischer. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable filmaker making a mark on children's entertainment. As a main part of VeggieTales, I'm going to say it warrants a stay on here. Ovo16 (talk) 13:54, 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. I fully expect to receive some impassioned comments on my talk page regarding this closure, but I don't see any other option; consensus is clear to me. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs[edit]

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

This article was originally speedy deleted but restored following a DRV discussion concluding that it did not meet the criteria for G11. There are however still doubts about the film's notability. I am listing this on AFD as a matter of administrative procedure and neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considerable evidence of notability (as mentioned on this page in several comments). Cantelo (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing enough independent reliable source coverage to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to demonstrate that the subject matter meets our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film's so unnotable that it doesn't even have reviews on Rotten Tomato. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film has received a fair amount of accolades in Independent film: 1, 2:

Nevada International Film Festival - Best Documentary

Hoboken International Film Festival - Best Documentary

White Sands International Film Festival - Best Director

Worldfest Houston - Special Jury Award - Higher than Platinum

Official Selection: Breckenridge Festival of Film, Chicago Underground Film Festival, Indie Fest USA, NYC Independent Film Festival, Urbanworld Film Festival, White Sands International Film Festival petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will all due respect to Nevada etc, I don't think that such awards are quite on the scale of the Academy Awards or Palme D'or given as examples at WP:NFILM - and if these awards are significant, one would expect proper coverage of the awards being given in third-party sources, rather than the passing mentions you link. The article doesn't even cite any reviews in the mainstream media, which one would have thought would be a start if the film is actually of lasting significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film clearly fails WP:NFILM, and this article is little more than a poorly-disguised attempt to push WP:FRINGE views and further advertise the film. The film itself is a trainwreck of conspiracies and falsehoods that has no encyclopedic merit, which is proven quite clearly in this extremely comprehensive article on the film. At the absolute least, the entire article needs to be rewritten almost entirely in order to comply with wiki guidelines, starting with WP:NPOV, and even then, it's still going to fail WP:NFILM. Garzfoth (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable film that has won at least 4 awards and possibly more. Due to the controversial nature of the film, the fact that it has made it to recognition that it has so far is proof. There are some mainstream news sources that deliberately avoided covering the film because of it's controversial nature. Not only is the film by a highly notable figure Gary Null, it also features highly notable figures such as Jeffrey Smith, Vandana Shiva, Shiv Chopra, Bruce Lipton, Joseph Mercola and Arpad Pusztai and more! Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sucks for us, as editors who might want to include something, that other news sources have not covered it for whatever reason. But that's how Wikipedia works, and it's pretty bad faith on any editor's part to assume nefarious reasons without cite of that motivation. And it's even worse to use that assumption as evidence that this thing is such a hot potato that surely we must write about it. Or that some hidden forces are trying to hold it down, so that any reporting is surely representative of so much more that would have actually been written if not. WP might just have to be content being part of that giant cover-up for now. DMacks (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to me DMacks is not the correct one because I wasn't talking about that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume your reply has a bit of emotion in it's load rather than your twisting things around. :) Mr Bill Truth (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There are some mainstream news sources that deliberately avoided covering the film because of it's controversial nature"? Really? Do you have a reliable source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These "awards" are not in any way significant. In fact, you had to create at least one of the articles on the non-notable groups making the awards. Odd that. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - fails WP:NFILM. WegianWarrior (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect it fails WP:NFILM and I'm concerned that this article is also being used as a WP:COAT to promote the quackery of the film. The only bona fide WP:RS I could find dismisses the film as such. I have added a key quote to Null's bio article as well, should this be redirected there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN, From the get-go this article was speedily deleted by User:Winner 42 under an incorrect claim of G11 which was completely uncalled for. There was nothing promotional about the film at all. Nothing! The user that deleted the film was User:RHaworth. A discussion took place on the user's Talk Page. It was pointed out to RHarworth that the deletion was invalid and the reply was I think the references were a bit too weak but it is certainly worth a try at DRV. So it seems that the deleting user is doing one thing but then saying another. IT was discussed at As per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 29. If you could please look into this then that would be a good thing. Already another user on Wikipedia has noticed something. Thanks Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, accusing an admin of duplicity when he's trying to give you the benefit of the doubt is a really really smart strategy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it was incorrect. I'm saying it was wrong. You're saying what you're saying and I guess you feel the need to. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The initial speedy deletion and deletion review are complete, closed, and irrelevant to this discussion. An article can be sent from speedy to afd without any commentary on the quality of the article or sourcing as long as it is determined the speedy deletion criteria was not met.Dialectric (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FILM and is a coatrack. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep per just meeting WP:NF through Discover Magazine, Rebelion, Piensa Chile, The Real News and a few others. I care not one whit about the truth or not of the film's assertions, as Notability or lack is not determined by article content, but rather by available coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the coverage meets WP:NF as none of the sources given are reliable. The first source is a skeptic blog, the second and third sources while looking reliable are actually just a republication of a fringe source [24]. The fourth source is also an unreliable source and doesn't provide significant coverage. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/05/31/gary-null-cultivator-of-dangerous-woo-plants-seeds-of-death/#.VcRK-XFVikq is reliable. It is a blog published by Discover Magazine, by respected science and environment journalist and journalism prof Keith Kloor. Michael is right that the reliable sources don't have to be laudatory, a film can be notably awful, even if that clearly wasn't the intention of the article creator in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, in my Chrome-translated version of Piensa Chile I see only a passing mention of the film towards the end, while "The Real News" seems to me to be more of a prmotional link to the video than coverage. I don't see enough to change my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Mr. Kloor, I did not realize that he was an expert, but I agree that this is not significant coverage of the film but of Gary Null. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 x awards and official selection at 6 fests >>>> is an indication of the notability in that respect. I can see at grassroots level this film is a major player. Possibly more awards in European countries too. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are major festivals or awards. But that's another thing: Houston's Worldfest (the most known of the fests) seems to have given him a "SPECIAL JURY AWARD" just about every time Null has a film at the festival, which is odd. (if you do a Google search for the director's name and Worldfest Houston there's an Excel sheet you can download). Yet I can find no independent source verifying that this Null-film won there. And no, the PBS station page shilling for the film is not a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - along with all the other Null film articles which also fail to meet WP:NFILM (which is all of them). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I don't know if I'd go that far. His recent poverty film, for example, garnered standalone reviews in both the LA and New York Times, I see (and to my surprise). Different reviewers, it wasn't just like a wire story thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN REGARDING CONSENSUS A proper consensus may not be able to be reached here for a couple of reasons. One reason is there are those who monitor the deletion boards and feel that their role is to police what stays or goes. Other good, honest people who edit here have no idea about what gets nominated for deletion. This being the case, they happily work on articles with no idea about what is taking place behind the scenes. I believe there are those here who have a communication system (what ever it may) to alert each other. Another reason is there are 2, possibly 3 users already here who have a history of contributing to not only the deletion of certain types of articles but also making sure certain articles do not evolve to something that may include certain info. There is and yes there is also a team-work effort that involves one member doing edits then when that member tires of it the other one comes on. This occurred on a health-related article I was editing as well as one other. As it has happened a few times and I have noticed a pattern, it could be just an innocent case of a young couple that may be looking after an infant. I'd like to think that this is is the case. I'm not going to mention names here as I was advised by another member that it is wrong to "out". What I will at some stage is submit my findings to a trusted admin. I'd like to be wrong on this, I really would but from what I have learnt from a couple of members plus from my own observations, I have to say that these things to happen and could be going on here. So if I'm right, I'd just ask that you allow the maximum time allowed before closure so that other editors (good & honest) may chance upon this discussion and add some balance to it. Thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the good old, "Consensus doesn't agree with me therefore it is wrong" approach. This time with the extra spice of accusations of a WP:CABAL and an attempt to WP:FILIBUSTER the process. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42 in addition to your previous gross incorrect nomination of this film for speedy deletion under G11 that was nothing more than a gross (Whatever it was) on your part, you seem to be incapable of understanding what I wrote about consensus. Or maybe you can understand but you choose to mis-represent my words as you did with the film. And if that's so and you felt the need to do so then that's what you have done. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YOUTUBE HIGH HITS
According to the Scientific American website and some others - Seeds of death: unveiling the lies of GMOs appears as one of the top hits in a quick search. >>>>>>>
And there's Academia.edu >>>>>>>
Enlightened Consciousness website's Yvonne Holterman who was critical of the film in calling it a propaganda film did say that the film had 1.8 million views at December 2014. She has said that it was the anti-GMO propaganda film on the youtube website with the most views. >>>>>> Mr Bill Truth (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'enlightened consciousness' website isn't remotely a reliable source. As for 'Academia.edu', you have failed to tell us what it says: please provide a translation (I assume you can speak Dutch - if not, why are you citing it?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, 'Academia.edu' is a social networking website - the source is the author of the piece, not the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bit on the "enlightened consciousness" website is ripped directly from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Seeds_of_Death. But the original source article does say that, and I suppose you could interpret it as a declaration of notability, although anyone who continues onwards through that article would quickly realize that this film is pure trash that does not belong on Wikipedia. Garzfoth (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The SciAm is only a passing mention and only based on ghit-counting. Even though SciAm is generally a WP:RS for science-related topics, I'm not sure their WP:LOTSOFGHITS is a good argument. As we see below, Google does give many off-topic hits for this even if pure counting of on-topic hits were a good argument. DMacks (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I clicked on the link google books above and 6 pages of links turned up. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those links are actually about the film though? The first page includes a book published in 2005, along with 'A practical guide to ethical polyamory'. The second page is no better:novels published in 2007 and 2012, along with other books by Null - clearly not third-party sources on anything. And trying to access anything beyond page 4 reveals that the search has actiually only found 37 links - the last one being a book on the Kennedy assasination. Google search is more or less useless as a means to demonstrate that a specific topic is discussed in the content - it merely looks for keywords, and the number of finds is an estimate. Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage, not by books that may possibly mention the film in passing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, excellent analysis. This particular "keep" vote is based on an exceedingly weak argument that fails the WP:RS component of WP:N. Garzfoth (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...exactly in accord with why WP:LOTSOFGHITS is such a poor AFD argument. DMacks (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are seeing (google may provide different links in different geographical locations) Here is are the first few entries I am seeing:

|The Fall of Babylon the Great America:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ySQcCgAAQBAJ Michael D. Fortner - 2015 - ‎Preview ... Christians will take over running the country, and the world. (Sources for this chapter include: The World According to Monsanto, documentary; articles at truthout.org, gmwatch.org; Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs documentary, ...

The Money Mafia: A World in Crisis

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1634240073 Paul Hellyer - 2014 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions “In Gary Null's eyeopening documentary 'Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs,' Dr. Bruce Lipton warns, 'We are leading the world into the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet.... Human behavior is undermining the web of life.' ...

Anti-Krebs Strategien:

https://books.google.ca/books?id... - Translate this page Alexander Becker - Preview In klinischen Versuchen wurde schon 1990 herausgefunden, dass gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel Tumore und Krebs bei Versuchen mit Ratten auslösen ( Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (2012)). Glücklicherweise, besteht ...

Optimale Gesundheit - Leben im Einklang mit unseren ...

https://books.google.ca/books?id... - Translate this page Alexander Becker - Preview In klinischen Versuchen wurde schon 1990 herausgefunden, dass gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel Tumore und Krebs bei Versuchen mit Ratten auslösen ( Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (2012)). Glücklicherweise, besteht ... Ottawahitech (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt and others. This film has been a part of several regionally significant film festivals and, as it is a grassroots independent documentary, it is not apt to be at Cannes or the Oscars, but it does meet GNG. Indeed, bad reviews or questioned science doen't mean that the film isn't notable. We have articles on films such as Loose Change (film series), so just because this is a film about an agriculture topic that isn't as widely discussed as 9/11 does not mean the film doesn't meet the minimum standards of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Change is by no means comparable to this film for quite obvious reasons, and I suggest reviewing WP:NFILM before claiming this is notable. Garzfoth (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found this film through local mainstream media sources in my country and came here to read about it. I recognise various figures from the film who are notable. Would be a shame to see this well-written article go. HermanForever — Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that the film contains figures that you believe are notable, and that the article is "well-written"? Neither of those justify keeping the article. Garzfoth (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is the film is notable as it's been played on free-to-air television (31 QCTV) and interviews notable people. The film complies with WP:NF.HermanForever (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Grassroots
- Hunterdon County Library Tuesday, June 25th from 6:00 – 9:00 pm. 2013 (In partnership with The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey)Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ) Film Screening Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs
- James McConnell Memorial Library, Sydney,Canada May 13, 2014 @ 7:00 pm - Community Garden Project Film: “Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs”, What’s Goin On Magazine Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs – McConnell Library – Sydney
- Venice High School Learning Garden, Culver City Saturday, 17 January, 2015 Heyevent Saturday, 17 January, 16:00 Venice High School Learning Garden, Culver City Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs
- Another venue was at the The McConnell Library in Sydney, Canada in May 2014. The Cape Breton Post reported that the film was presented in a in conjunction with the Cape Breton University Centre for International Studies. - Cape Breton Post Sydney library to host film screening Published on April 30, 2014 Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC) (Tidied at) Mr Bill Truth (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are these extremely small screenings anywhere near notable? Garzfoth (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative documentaries are usually small screenings, doesn't mean they are non-notable, by this standard only Spider-Man would meet your analysis of GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable crank film, not distributed through any of the usual channels, of no demonstrated significance. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others mentioned above, notability is not established, and it is a WP:FRINGE topic as part of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe is not part of GNG... as I noted above Loose Change (film series) is about as fringe as it gets, but it's notable. Notability is not great, but it's adequate. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG. WP is not censored, and there can be articles on fringe subjects, including films about fringe subjects. GregJackP Boomer! 08:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? It's nothing to do with censorship, it's a no-budget film made by a crank with no reality-based commentary to allow WP:NPOV to be maintained; all coverage seems to track back to promotional material. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a crappy article, and a lot of it should be gutted. The citations need to be formatted so that the publication is listed and noted in each. The putative awards need to be cited from each award's website -- so far, none of them are. For all of these reasons, it's well-nigh impossible to tell if the subject meets WP:NFILM. I did however find actual substantiation for at least one of the awards, here: [25]. My view is that if all of the putative awards could be accurately cited, that cumulatively would push the film over into notability for Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or merge. The film is mentioned in part in a number of notable secondary articles but it isn't the topic of those articles. That is to say that it is in the articles as part of a broader point. On the other hand works of art of notable people are in themselves notable but do not always warrant a separate article. Since the creator has several films to his credit many of them WP:BARE articles merging them together into a larger Films by Gary Null article would be far more efficient.--Savonneux (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gary Null; doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Miniapolis 00:18, 13 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. Opinions are divided, as they can in good faith be, over the merits of the sources, so... no clear outcome here. Sandstein 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Belucci[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Didn't know such a thing like erotic dj existed but I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that these Hungarian (and one Italian) sources that cover her are reliable for the GNG.[26][27][28][29][30][31] Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above and below - Not sure how on earth I missed them!. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For what Morbidthoughts said. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone explain how these sources count as RS? Does anyone actually know what kind of publications these are? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that hard to look up some of the sources in wikipedia. Blikk,Večernji list, Nova TV (Croatia)#Dnevnik Nove TV Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We don't use tabloids to establish notability of a topic. "Hungarian tabloid" sounds exotic, but if it's on the same level as ones we're more familiar with in the West eg. the Daily Mail and TMZ, then they are just as worthless. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching online does not provide any authoritative sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no way that Večernji list or Dnevnik Nove TV could be marked as "tabloids", let alone to be paired to TMZ. Nor Genova Today or the musical website rave.cz appear to be close to tabloid journalism. The subject easily satisfies GNG as it received significant reliable coverage in established (mainstream) reliable sources. Also covered in established Italian news sources including TgCom24 [32], Gazzetta di Reggio [33], Libero [34], and more briefly in Corriere del Mezzogiorno [35]. Cavarrone 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At best then it is a WP:BLP1E for being a "topless dj", so we're still on solid grounds for deletion. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No way it's a WP:BLP1E as well. I suspect you have not checked the sources, most of the articles covers her whole career, "being a topless dj" is not an event, it's just a profession, especially as "being a topless dj" is not something rare, looking at Google there are some hundreds of nude DJs around the world [36]. The sources are not articles about "nude djing", and they generally do not cover the "nude dj" thing for more than a line, they cover her (specific) whole figure and career (several of them starting from when she was a child). And anyway, according to some articles such as the Dnevnik Nove TV one, she actually does "standard" dj sets and she not make nude djing since 2011. WP:BLP1E has three requisites and the subject does not fulfil any of them, that's not even close to a BLP1E. Cavarrone 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not for the toplessness, there would be no coverage. BLP1E protects us from having to host articles on every two-bit retarded "weird story of the day" that the media decides to cover. Whether it's a girl who hiccups constantly or the guy who blows his head off with fireworks. Add "topless" to any profession...news anchor, bowling, fry cook, etc...and a news story is virtually guaranteed. Sensational != notable. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a BLP1E as it fails each and every point of BLP1E, whatever your personal feelings, own interpretations or personal bias are, period. BLP1E protects us from having articles on low-profile individuals who are only mentioned in the context of a wider event in which they had not a significant role, eg. a civil victim of a bombing or one of the witnesses of the Lee Harvey Oswald killing. Belucci gets coverage plain and simple because she was not unknown before her DJ career and she managed to achieve some success in her actual profession, even leveraging her previous notoriety. Someone receiving international coverage about herself and her work in established news sources for eight years, touring in several countries and participating to international festivals as noted in such sources, is not the "weird story of the day". Competence is required and you cannot misuse policies because of your speculations and bias. And FIY, as pointed above, there are hundreds of nude/topless DJs who receive zero secondary coverage (and let alone thousand of pornographic actors or nude models who completely fail GNG in spite of showing way more than a topless). Cavarrone 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we're to throw WP:CIR around, it is better aimed at editors, i.e. you, who misuse the Wikipedia as the Linkedin of Porn. I stand by the point that a person who is only receiving coverage for one peculiar thing is on solid BLP1E grounds. If the closing admin disagrees then that is fine. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, fantastic, first you falsely claimed valid sources were tabloids, then you raised some bizarre and patently incorrect BLP1E claims and finally after being rebutted you just ended in personal attacks. You are just making some unimpressive wikilawyering because of your bias (i.e. someone who made pornography should be automatically non-notable) and then you should take a look at WP:CENSOR. Sorry but providing and checking sources (that do not cover only "one peculiar thing" as you keeps on claiming) and improving the article replacing unreliable sources with valid ones is not "misusing the Wikipedia as the Linkedin of Porn", your use of WP:CIR for such attack is just a further proof of your lack of competence and good faith. You just have no arguments other than your advocacy, but advocacy, either pro-something or anti-something, is not welcome on WP. Cavarrone 16:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated many successful AfDs on that basis of that BLP1E standard, and seen many others deleted on such grounds. Sometimes it does not carry the day, we'll just have to see what happens here. What this sounds like yet another "Old Hand"^(tm) Wikipedian who is just out-of-step with the reality today XfDs, where the Rescue Squad dogma is long-gone. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rebutted such poor arguments in a bunch of failed AfDs started on that basis of incorrect applications of BLP1E like yours. You have just not explained how the current subject fulfils any of the three points of BLP1E and how the sources support such a BLP1E claim, so, good luck. The only fact you retrieved the BLP1E argument as a reserve after your "tabloid" argument failed explains a lot about its validity. Cavarrone 16:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you both User:Tarc and User:Cavarrone leave this discusiion now, and let other !voters opine. Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles on her DJ appearances do not appear to be RS-quality, but instead appear to be uncritical workups of the subject's own promotional materials. For example, the Libero piece cited by Cavarrone describes Belucci as the only topless DJ in the world, which is clearly non-factual; several of these sources describe the subject's renowned career as a national-class gymnast in some detail, providing her real name, which she competed under -- but here seems to be no verifiability for such claims predating the subject's current career, strongly indicating the bio is, at best, kayfabe. The attractive female gymnast sure to reach the Olympics until her career was cut short by injuries is a common fake life story for Eastern European porn starlets, and nothing here supports it being anything other than inauthentic. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of journeyman rock bands, rappers, and other performers who get stories like these published in newspapers for the cities where they're appearing every weekend in the US, and for good reasons they aren't treated as notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this google news search [37] (which makes her pass GNG) bringing up lots of Hungarian sources, calling respectable newspapers tabloids because they are foreign is not convincing. Sources do not have to be in english. Calling her two careers as a DJ (She DJs non topless too, more frequently non topless.) and porn one event is not supported by policy. GuzzyG (talk) 21:14, 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 redirect to Pitzer College. Consensus is not to have an article, but unclear as to whether to merge or delete. So let the editorial process sort this out; any merger, to the extent consensus supports it, can be done from the history. Sandstein 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitzer College Student Senate[edit]

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

Page is not notable. Uses only primary sources. This is something that is absolutely not Wikipedia worthy. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - you need significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Technically, these sources might be "independent" of the subject, but not in a "real world" sense of providing substantial media coverage. North of Eden (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this page has extensive verifiable references, including citation from the Los Angeles Times and local publications. Compare to other existing similar student government wiki pages such as Wesleyan Student Assembly or University of Colorado Student Government. - Californika19 (talk)

The LA Times article doesn't even discuss the senate, just mentions a student who is a senator. Please read WP:GNG and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pitzer College. Not notable on its own but appears to have been involved in events that are part of the college's history. --torri²(^talk/_contribs) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a good idea. Would switch my !vote to Merge. North of Eden (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems as though the this organization is relevant and complex enough that it merits its own article. The citations appear to be credible and independent, although they should probably be diversified eventually. —555horsesandponies (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck this account's !vote as it is a Confirmed puppet of Californika19 (see above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "extensive verifiable references" are primary sources with the exception of one or two external sources. Not enough to show WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - small non profit association at a small college, this amounts to a fork filled with trivia. I seem to recall we have done so with other small student clubs. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 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. Sandstein 18:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-oestrogenic diet[edit]

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

This diet has no coverage in respectable RS (the phrase occurs nowhere in PUBMED's index) and so it is not possible to construct a viable article. There is coverage in unreliable sources but this is unscientific in nature and so using it leads to an unscientific/misleading article - which is what we have. Alexbrn (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Not everything has to be covered in respectable RS to have an article, see e.g. Reiki or Intelligent Design. The topic may be fringe, but as far as I can tell it is also fairly common and so should have an article. That said, the current article we have is very bad, so I'd support a 'delete until it is better written' kind of decision. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Reki and ID have stacks of RS coverage. WP:GNG is fundamental and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We ain't got that here so far as can see. Alexbrn (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point actually. I have only briefly looked at this topic, but it seems a bit fishy in the sense that all the results returned by Google are in favour of it, yet if it were really that effective I'd expect bodies such as the FDA to endorse it too. That said there are a lot of results returned by Google, many of which look reasonably RS. I know little about this subject, so in view of that I think it's better to stay on the sidelines of this AfD. Retract my opinion. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search and I can't find any reliable sources that give this topic more than a cursory mention. The best I could come up with is this, which isn't enough. If one can be found, I would reconsider, but if kept the article needs some serious work. It's far too credulous. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero, or very close to zero, mention in reliable sources of any type. The article makes claims that would require WP:MEDRS, but nothing even approaching coverage of this material is available there. To the extent that reliable sources are cited in the article, they are either referencing background statements not directly related to the article's premise, or are used in a deceptive manner: the cited Journal of Nutrition paper most assuredly does not attribute the positive effects of vegetable consumption to "liver cleansing", for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:09, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of semiaquatic organisms[edit]

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

This page mostly serves as the target of a redirect from Semiaquatic and Semi-aquatic. There is no clear criteria for inclusion in the list and if there were to be a list of creatures who meet the Wiktionary definition for semi-aquatic, it would be exceedingly long and unhelpful. I propose that the links above be changed to a ((soft redirect)) to the Wiktionary definition and the few links directly to this page changed to that soft redirect. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is woefully incomplete, and the concept of "semiaquatic organisms" has fuzzy boundaries. Dictionary definition will serve readers better than a shoddy list. Plantdrew (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, any list is better than none for someone searching for semi-aquatic organisms. Siuenti (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some consideration should be given to restricting the list to a more manageable taxonomic category, such as "List of semiaquatic vertebrates" or "List of semiaquatic mammals". WolfmanSF (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Aquatic animal and Terrestrial animal are both article subjects, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an article on semiaquatic lifestyles is also merited. Perhaps this would be better handled by an article with more description, rather than simply a list of examples. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start article Semiaquatic and/or Semiaquatic animal and Semiaquatic plant) so that the concept is explained. Any list could include millions of species, potentially.Borock (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is "there are a lot of these things, so we won't help you find any of them"? Siuenti (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all topics are well-served by lists. The definition of semi-aquatic is not firmly established, and different authors employ the term differently. That makes it an excellent topic for an article, explaining the different senses of the term, their history, and discussing key example taxa. On the other hand, it makes for a terrible premise for a list, especially an unmanageably large one such as this would be. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term semi-aquatic has no single accepted scientific definition, making any inclusion criteria dodgy. Also, even if we were to overcome this problem, there would be millions of potential entries. These organisms would be far better served by a [[Category:Semi-aquatic organisms]]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 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. Sandstein 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ove-Naxx[edit]

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

The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) enough to build a full article. No articles in major music news sources. No suitable merge targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources are found. – czar 02:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. The article probably qualifies for speedy deletion, since no assertion of notability is made. --DAJF (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources given or found to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:35, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CannaBrands, Inc.[edit]

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

Every single reference here is a press release or eroutine mention in a document or self-authored. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not outstandingly notable at this time with the best my searches finding this (News). SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject's own website, corporate database entries, and press releases do not consistute reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:37, 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. Sandstein 18:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Rory Tran[edit]

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

No independent sources, so fails WP:BIO and WP:DIRECTOR. Conifer (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good at all and there's nothing to suggest keeping this otherwise personal webpage-looking article. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like self-promotion. No references given, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -As stated, no independent sources; one reference links back to this same Wiki article. ABF99 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderbeast[edit]

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

No independent sources, failing WP:BAND. Conifer (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly notable aside from self-associated links (social media, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:47, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winjit technologies[edit]

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

No reliable refs. Fails WP:GNG . The refs confirm it exists but nothing more. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. Refs provided are incidental mentions and non-notable awards. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (draft/userfy if needed) - I'm not familiar with those awards and my searches found nothing convincingly good here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there exists a copy/paste draft here, which has been declined. If there is a decision to draftify, strongly recommend a histmerge to maintain attribution. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 13 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. Any redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Schon[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress; only known for childhood role in 1 film. Quis separabit? 22:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately redirect to Night of the Living Dead as there's not much and the majority of it is for Night of the Living Dead, with my searches here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, she might have a shot at criterion #2 of WP:ENT, however as you say sources are scant and not many of them are good quality sources. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News sweeps did not turn up much, except for a coupla mentions here, also a mention here, tad bit more coverage here, overall not seeing she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (musician)[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. He co-produced two albums but has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. Indeed, the article has no reliable sources. Note: I did just delete five references before making this nomination because not one of them mentioned the subject of the article; the one that remains doesn't refer to him by the name of the article but rather by the name used on another article, created by the same editor (most likely the subject), that was just deleted. -- Irn (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Irn (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Irn (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part hoax, part not notable, part liar. Editor behind this has been introducing fake credits for this individual. Compare the writers credits introduced to [38] Joe Budden (album) to those found at allmusic [39]. No sign of Joe Constantino at allmusic. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, fake source, promo?, hoax? Kraxler (talk) 16:15, 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. Sandstein 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rovier Carrington[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Müdigkeit (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any either. The article was created by a newly registered user just minutes after a newly registered user made these edits, which (given the lack of sources) may suggest an intent more promotional than encyclopedic. Ewulp (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The musical career portion of the page about Michael Jackson is odd and non standard format. His affiliations don't make him important. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - There's nothing here or in my searches suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 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. Sandstein 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Franklin C. Dielman[edit]

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

A rural medical doctor in Indiana. Unable to find any references on him. Prod was removed Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm kind of sad to say this, as he seems to have been an upstanding citizen and great fellow, but he has no notability whatsoever. No coverage in reliable, independent sources, no indication of personal significance outside of his small town. Nice as it would be, Wikipedia just isn't a directory of good townsfolk from the olden days, especially when they don't meet WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsurprisingly, there's not a lot on the Internet about this medical doctor, whose career was pre-WWW. I tried various searches. He's mentioned briefly in two histories of Indiana. Other than that, he seems to be just your average rural baby-delivering, influenza-fighting physician; I don't see anything really notable. I'm willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. The creator õf this article is better served with "Find a Grave" Kraxler (talk) 16:20, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marath Manafov[edit]

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

WP:GNG?? Müdigkeit (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. I'd say speedy, but there is a drop of an allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first his name is Marat, not Marath. I'm improving. Not run of the mill. He was involved in high-level talks between the Azerbaijani government and foreign oil companies. According to allegations and exposes (including The Times), he demanded (and possibly received) $360 million in bribes from BP and other companies. Manatov later announced that he was only working on behalf of the president of AZE, who was running all kinds of corruption rackets. Manafov then vanished off the face of the earth and is assumed to be playing checkers somewhere with Jimmy Hoffa. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marat Manafow, not Marath? Oh well... there are enough reliable sources, I think, so we can keep this.--Müdigkeit (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Marat Manafov (or it would be transcribed as "Manafow" in German or Polish). Thanks Müdigkeit for looking at the improved article and reconsidering - I'll close as withdrawn. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:29, 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. Deletion is uncontested apart from a rather incomprehensible comment. Would probably meet the G11 (purely promotional) criteria too, in my view. Sandstein 18:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brait[edit]

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

No obvious notability. The references confirm it exists but not much more. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment: This is relevant information.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasselhodge (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just an attempt by someone most likely linked to the company to give them an air of respectability. This belongs on their PR page and not on wiki.Rayman60 (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:56, 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. Sandstein 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Officials (Singer)[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find significant independent coverage. Songs haven't charted or won any notable awards. Linkspam of external links as well as the general tone is promotional. His two music videos have racked up about 150 views on Youtube so dunno where the 400000 figure comes from. Cowlibob (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find significant coverage as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:16, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:G3: a blatant hoax as demonstrated by nominator and the AFD discussion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaxi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mendaxi

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

This is an unsourced article with nothing I can find about it elsewhere in my internet searches, so this could probably be a hoax. The names of the founder and the photographer and model aren't present out in the internet too, in my search effort. The images and their summaries however are the closest evidence to prove that this company exists, but they're not found outside of its Wikipedia source too. TheGGoose (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise by someone with Greek print media sources, but I don't expect they'll be forthcoming. This article posits the existence of a multinational cosmetics company, funded by Aristotle Onassis, and purchased by L’Oréal. Admittedly, consumer products business news from the 1970s and 1980s is not necessarily online... However, there's no mention of this company in any of the biographies of Onassis that I could locate. No mention of this company in L’Oréal's history. No Internet presence for the company, for its founder, for its principal photographer, for its model. The only images of advertising copy associated with this company that appear to exist online are the ones present in this article (despite the fact that "classic" advertisements are somewhat in vogue as a topic of study and discussion). Oh, and while it's sort of believable as a name for a cosmetics company, the obvious root word here is the Latin mendax: false, deceitful, untruthful, or lying. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting that this subject's name is based on a Latin word that describes hoaxes. Notice in Mendaxi Press Advert 1972.jpg where there is a vertical gap in the middle, perhaps giving the realization that the image is from two pages. The last edit by the article creator also asserts a bit more info about Mendaxi and a claim that the photographer also worked on a Benetton campaign. here. TheGGoose (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing found on this company. The "advertisements" could easily be produced using even the most basic image editing software - they are likely hoaxes themselves. Since the company supposedly had subsidiaries in "more than 20 countries," the Greek language shouldn't be a barrier; if this company existed, many references in Western European languages should be available. The text quality of the upper left advertisement looks particularly poor (almost like using MS Paint or a similar program to type on an image) and would not have been used by any actual advertiser in 1972, nor would an advertiser have perplexed customers by mixing Greek and Latin scripts within the same sentence. The purchase of a cosmetics giant operating in 20 countries would also have attracted attention from business reporters, but no references to Mendaxi exist in Google's News Archive or Google Books (aside from one "book" consisting solely of Wikipedia articles). All of these details point to a likely hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G3 - I was going to tag it as G3 when I noticed it was nominated and this should easily been tagged as my searches including the simplest ones found absolutely nothing. Although this is before the internet, I'm not very optimistic there are non-English and offline sources because they're would've at least been something especially if it was actually acquired by L’Oréal and funded by Aristotle Onassis; not to mention the photos seem to appear newer than the 1970s. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually tagged the article with G3, but I reverted it and set up this discussion instead, to see what other Wikipedians recommend. TheGGoose (talk) 20:58, 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. WP:SNOW Guy (Help!) 23:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kamal Mustafa[edit]

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

Vanity bio extensively edited by the subject and written in a highly promotional tone complete with unverifiable name dropping typical of these articles. Sources are thin or associated with him, everything else out there is social media and self-generated content. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and per WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a vanity, personal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.237.185 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no evidence of notability, the primary author is treating the article as a portal to all of his work, and he sources everything he writes to his own websites and press releases. This is so even as he restores content I already deleted once because it was full of grand claims supported only by his own content elsewhere. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails the notability guidelines for musician. The most references in the article, are either from self-published or the primary sources which is not considered to be the reliable source. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous self-promotion by COI editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious vanispamcruftisment. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other !votes. Obvious WP:vanispamcruftisment ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Fails GNG and is purely promotional. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:42, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of the Penguins[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NVIDEOGAMES. No coverage found at all beyond marketplace listings and primary sources. It was PROD'd, but that was removed. ~ Rob^Talk 05:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beat me to the AfD. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ((ping)) me. – czar 05:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:13, 6 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} 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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 speedy delete. G11, promotionalism for the firm of the same name DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Public relations design[edit]

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

Possible advertising. With no reliable references together with a confusing subject and does not appear to be encyclopedic. Reads like a corporate handbook and has a strange tone. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable concept, possibly original research. Esquivalience ^t 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Fredrick Felch[edit]

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

I think it is safe to say that this falls into the category of "one-event" biography. It may have been "viral" at some time, but I can't see how it passes any of the notability guidlines. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic BLP1E, and we do not need to memorialize an incident of public nudity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook WP:BLP1E. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straight forward WP:BLP1E as others have said, I would go as far as to say that it is bordering on being an attack page. Also fails WP:CRIME. Winner 42 Talk to me! 06:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice try but only recognized by one event. Lacking overall importance.Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 06:18, 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 00:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combination Lock (game show)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced by any non-dead, independent sources. Even its own "Official website" links falls back to a homepage with no mention. Fails WP:CRYSTAL as not yet broadcast, nor seeming to be credibly announced. It also appears to be a 1 episode pilot, thus even more dubious. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Painful writing just ringing all the alarm bells and the usual "fun with MS Paint" Nick hoaxers pass by all the time (and they can't even get basic writing or years right in those figures either!). Otherwise, using the Nick press site to 'source' without anything to link from, Nick isn't doing 'regular kid' game shows at this point and anyone doing a show in standard definition in 2015 would be laughed out of the room (we're well into the all-HD era now). Third creation, so it may be time to add a dash of salt to this. Not to mention some of the personnel like Herb Scannell? Kind of not in the position to spare time on a game show, what with other jobs and non-competes and those kind of things. Nate • (chatter) 06:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to advocate deletion of anything on fixable quality grounds, but yes, this is pretty painful to read. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This show existed only in the form of an unsold pilot episode. It doesn't have independent coverage, and it doesn't meet inclusion criteria. This iteration of the article appears (to the extent that the prose is comprehensible at all) to gussy it up as if it had been picked up and was going to air in 2015. It didn't. It isn't. Let's put a stop to this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haute Living[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted here. Refs show that it exists (2 x Bloomberg) and it has passing refs. The only slightly weightier one is the Daily Mail which isn't considered a reliable or robust source. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref +Businessweek Updated. Debatable WP:GNG elements removed. Keep. Andydesher (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Raphael, T.J. (2012-03-22). "Haute living introduces media network: company rolls out 5 new Luxe niche sites to enhance content offerings. (TheSourceMix)". Audience Development. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
  The article notes:
  IN AN EFFORT to extend the company's portfolio, Haute Media Group is introducing a group of niche sites focused on the luxury consumer demographic. The move to launch these initial 5 media products came after HauteLiving.com, the national luxury lifestyle website for Haute, Living, began generating at least 20,000 unique visitors per day.
2. Coverage in Adweek: http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/haute-living-happily-living-in-denial/11329, http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/haute-living-expands-to-eight-new-markets/16014, http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/eight-new-markets-are-haute-living/53534, and http://www.adweek.com/fishbowlny/carmelo-anthony-enters-the-magazine-business/75640.
3. Abelson, Max (2006-10-27). "Haute Living Says: "No Fluff"". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
4. Abelson, Max (2006-08-01). "New York Finally Gets Haute". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
5. Kelly, Keith J. (2013-04-26). "Forbes Office promo sets off security alarm". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
  The article notes:
  Haute Living CEO Kamal Hotchandani said, “We had the digital product pushed out [to] 8.2 million people before the print edition launched.”
  The result, he said: “We had 48,000 digital downloads in the first 24 hours.”
  Haute Time is one of a series of enterprises being spun out of Haute Living, a 9-year-old company that Hotchandani said has revenues north of $10 million a year.
  More coverage in the New York Post here^WebCite.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Haute Living to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources (though they might be unreliable, so I am not using them to establish notability since the above sources are sufficient):
1. Potocki, P. Joseph (2011-01-30). "Nappin' Alley aims for Haute Living readership". SF Bay Timeless. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
2. Jessica (2006-08-23). "'Haute Living' Hires Completely Random, Probably Attractive EIC". Gawker. Archived from the original on 2015-08-04. Retrieved 2015-08-04.
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double Trouble Twins[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. Google search turned up no relevant results, and it doesn't appear on the PBS list of all past and present programs. Conifer (talk) 07:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a hoax article. There seems to be no indication anywhere that this ever existed as an animated PBS show. Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm quite familiar with PBS shows and this is not one of them and not to mention my searches including the simplest ones found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly likely hoax. The author has created two unreferenced articles, and the other has been identified as a likely hoax as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. As noted, no references exist for this show. A few apparent Google hits actually refer to characters on Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?, which aired on PBS for several years before the fictitious show. Calamondin12 (talk) 22:12, 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 no consensus. Or rather, no discussion... Sandstein 18:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Model for Assessment of telemedicine - MAST[edit]

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

There are insufficient independent sources to show that this assessment system is notable, per WP:Golden Rule Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about that. these nine all cite PMID 22617736 for starters. PMID 26034465 refers briefly too, saying "The Model for Assessment of Telemedicine applications [21] was chosen for a systematic analysis and description of outputs for NEXES." Suggest this article be either userfied or moved to draft space for further work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

oh the "cited by"! of those,

1 PMID 26034465 / PMC 4447233 a primary source that uses MAST framework

2 is the same as #1

3 PMID 25886014 / PMC 4336686 (shares authors with prime source) a primary source that uses MAST framework

4 PMID 25659890 / PMC 4322202 mentions MAST in passing; describes a competing system for design and evaluation of telehealth interventions

5 PMID 25499592 / PMC 4275473 is a primary source that uses MAST framework (shares authors with #8)

6 PMID 24860666 / PMC 4016832 is a primary source that uses MAST framework

7 PMID 24464237 / PMC 3945538 cites it only to say it will not discuss it

8 PMID 23978690 / PMC 3758066 is a primary source that uses MAST framework (shares authors with #6)

9 PMID 23032363 / PMC 3510713 gives a passing mention

So... not sure if any of those describe MAST per se. I would agree with the recommendation to move to draft space for more work before it comes back to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we applying too high a standard to an emerging area? Evaluation of telemedicine is in its infancy. Where are we going to find these independent sources?Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:43, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vera&John[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 29 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) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the noms reasoning. I don't see how this is notable. Ana r chyte 03:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing outstanding with the best being News, Highbeam and Thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PfSense[edit]

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

Almost all the refs are own refs and the very few that are not don't confer any notability. The two that aren't own web-site are Free Software Magazine, and Tech Republic and both read as though they are spawned from press releases. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is incorrect. Furthermore your statement is vague and does not state a valid for page deletion. Majority of references referring to pfSense page are technical nature and the two you consider wrong are still valid. Please provide valid reasons. --Mnlth (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my previous message, most of references you consider wrong are actual history, product version and features which cannot be referenced anywhere other than to pfSense page. If you can find references about pfSense history and their product versions on some more reliable source, please let me know. --Mnlth (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT:

Here's a longer list of pages that are also referencing to their own sites, why are they not marked for deletion?

--Mnlth (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does propose a valid reason for deletion, and that is that the subject fails to satisfy WP:GNG, the general notability guideline. If you disagree, the most effective way to counter the claim is to provide reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject in detail. While self-published sources are generally okay for verification of information in appropriate circumstances, they contribute very little to establishing a subject's notability. Also, pointing out that other articles with similar issues exist does not prove that this particular article should exist—see WP:WHATABOUTX. —Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide secondary sources for release notes? More importantly, how does that make information more valid? It simply makes no sense to provide references and secondary sources for the release notes from sources that have no connection with pfSense project. Furthermore, WP:GNG is satisfied because references to secondary sources are provided on subjects that required it. On subjects like release notes, references must go to official source of information and not secondary sources. --Mnlth (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Significant coverage in secondary sources is needed to show that the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Of course you can use primary sources for verifying release notes. Mz7 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by Softpedia[40] (if good enough for Department of Homeland Security [41], good enough for me), InfoWorld[42], NetworkWorld, ZDNet, SecurityWeek, Phoronix[43], Tech Republic; multiple books written on subject; Microsoft writes about configuring it for their products[44]. Notability is not established by sources in article (WP:CIRC maybe applies?), but their mere existence elsewhere. Article could certainly use some cleanup, however. Maybe OP can search for external sources (appears to not have occurred prior to AfD...) and include those into article. A primary sources tag is warranted in head of article, but not deletion, as it clearly meets GNG. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really makes no sense. pfSense page is being considered for deletion because majority references point to release notes on pfsense project pages (their own refs). These refs are strictly release notes and it simply makes no logic or sense to reference any other secondary source for release notes. On the other subjects there are references on secondary sources, so [[WP:GNG] is satisfied and WP:GNG is satisfied because references to secondary sources are provided on subjects that required it.--Mnlth (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: May i ask you what triggered you to mark this page for deletion? Because it is a bit odd that this happens "just" as there is dispute between opnsense and pfsense. Or differently asked. Are you affiliated to opnsense? GruensFroeschli (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Irrelevant to the current situation.

However i think a deletion is not justified. Maybe change the header to "this article has problems" instead of delete it. GruensFroeschli (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no valid reason for deletion.--Mnlth (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep, this is a very notable BSD. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is backed up by plenty of unrelated news sources (InfoWorld, Network World, Security Week, TechRepublic and Free Software Magazine). -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment:: It even made it onto Slashdot [45] (with a 1.0 release at that). -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is backed up by plenty of unrelated news sources - including a recommendation for why you should be using it s recently as 2014/DEC that does not appear to be directly related to a press release.

infoworld [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.207.193 (talk) 10:49, 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. Don't usually close on one !vote but GNG is met and no else's commented for the entire 2 weeks so no point dragging it on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirizak Bihi[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. LiberatorLX (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that the sources in the article now in conjunction with the following [47] [48] [49] [50] are sufficient to establish that Bihi meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Everymorning talk 02:31, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sistema Azud[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Brief mentions on irrigation industry and local organizations' websites but no significant coverage in WP:RS. Note that "azud" is a term for a type of dam in Spanish so a lot of hits will come up that are not specific to this org. PROD contested last year.Vrac (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Lack of non-industry references and no real claim to independent notability such as notable market share, capitalization, corporate personalities/employees, inventions, or growth. Also written as an advertisement. We're not a trade publication. GraniteSand (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Not notable for Wiki yet and my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck de Caro[edit]

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

WP:TNT and WP:JUNK- plain and simple. This article is a mess, written by what appears to be the subject without decent sourcing. I attempted a WP:PROD so that the article could be recreated without prejudice, but the editor contested it. I recommend deleting without prejudice towards a new article with adequate sourcing written in a NPOV, since I believe the subject passes WP:BIO. There's not much here to save though. The Dissident Aggressor 19:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor contesting the deletion (and I am NOT the subject). I have added references today and will continue to update the article and source the material as my schedule permits Skaneid (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The career and sourcing are idiosyncratic. There is this old WaPo story about a de Caro idea that never got off the ground. [51] Similar in Baltimore Sun [52] serious stories in serious newspapers; about a proposal that didn't fly. They and some of the other sources now in article could probably be used to source a brief article on de Caro, if User:Skaneid or someone else were willing to look at how WP articles are written and take the time to attempt write an acceptable one. Such an article would, for example, need to show that the co-authored books were not merely written and printed, but reviewed or written up in reliable sources. The shooting [53] was dramatic.[54] I am glad to know that Mr. de Caro will recover. If Skaneid or someone would read other articles on journalists and writers, and study Wikipedia style and sourcing guidelines, this article might be improved to the point where it could pass the notability threshold.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate E.M. Gregory's advise. Silly me, I actually was using the WP article on Dan Rather as a style guide. I will continue to work to improve this article as I find both the man and his work fascinating. Skaneid (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The publications are not books, but trivial pamphlets or conference reports, with a length of between 10 and 30 pages not books, or at least the half of them I could find a working link for. None of them are in WorldCat -- and not even in Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this article is written without proper citations using one-off editor names that have been used exclusively to edit this article (HarrietteG, Clancy1234, Skaneid, and Skastrolabe), and showing a familiarity with de Caro that raises the suspicion that he wrote it himself. There was only one citation in the references section, one that I added when I created the references section, and it pertained only to the de Caro shooting in 2015. Citations added since this deletion was proposed are improperly coded. Apart from that small paragraph about the shooting, the rest of the article is subject to removal because it is original research. Delete the article and rewrite in correct form using only material that survives scrutiny with proper citations from reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia. Tear it up, begin again, and adhere to rules in any rewrite. — O'Dea (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E - this person is only approaching our standards of notability because second amendment enthusiasts have latched onto his recent hotel gunfight as a political plank. His previous (trivial) mentions in various news media are to be expected from someone who was a reporter for many years; none of the coverage is about him, it's about stuff he reported on, much of it written by him. I share DGG's findings in looking for his publications, and find no evidence to suggest notability. With respect to the article's creators, please see our reliable source guidelines, especially as they relate to YouTube and blogs. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:48, 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 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Garcia (DJ)[edit]

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

I'm unsure about this DJ being really notable or not, so I'm bringing this article for discussion. There are three sources: one of them just mentions him. The other two come from a non-major website. The awards he received are no special things either. Google searches failed to return anything too relevant. The Portuguese version of the article had far more sources, but was deleted last year. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 06:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a Portuguese speaker but my searches found nothing and I'd think if the Portuguese article was deleted, that's probably say something so delete this one for now until further sourcing and notability can be established. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another DJ, the DJ Sound Award (unsourced) still fails WP:ANYBIO, the first source lists him #89 of the TOP 100 Brazilian DJs, the second source doesn't mention him, and the third source says "soap opera star Paola Oliveira dances to the music provided by DJ Garcia" and has a photo of the two, but notability is not WP:INHERITED Kraxler (talk) 16:33, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Torres[edit]

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

Non-notable local AM DJ, fails the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Article has been BLP tagged for seven years following a removed prod. Just took out a bunch of unsourced WP:PEACOCK violations and outright trivia, and when the dust settled, there's damn near nothing supported by a reliable source (and, as to that, no reliable sources). Just a paltry handful of news hits [55], all which are routine casual mentions, even under "Freakin' Puerto Rican," a moniker Torres used to use but apparently doesn't now.

The article's history has it being created and worked over by a small horde of SPAs. No doubt the subject is a swell fellow, but his Wikipedia fan club notwithstanding, he just doesn't meet the standards for a biographical article. Ravenswing 05:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local media personality with no broad-ranging coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree and my searches found nothing convincingly good with the best being this. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Parker[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many nominations to awards, 10 x interwiki, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 08:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Multiple nominations are not enough. Fails GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as has won many awards, passes PORNBIO & GNG, This !vote has absolutely nothing to do with the infobox image and or her looks ... –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Davey2010 how does she pass PORNBIO? There are no wins or RS in the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple nominations (there are no wins) do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO, and there is zero coverage in reliable sources. Not sure why this was relisted; Subtropical Man's votes in porn BLPs are routinely discarded as they violate project policy and guideline alike, while Davey2010's makes a demonstrably false claim of as has won many awards that he has yet to explain. Tarc (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO with merely nominations and no wins. No sources to suggest she could pass GNG. Finnegas (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of US News, international news, entertainment-related, and Hungarian news did not reveal anything suggesting she meets the WP:GNG. Note there may be confusion with a different Madison Parker such as here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple nominations with no wins does not make someone notable in this industry, it probably indicates the latter. The pornography industry engages in award inflation to a level where just being nominated for an award is meaningless.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keep !votes (one of which appears to have been a joke) are so flimsy this didn't need to be relisted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:58, 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.