< 7 August	9 August >

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disability Challengers[edit]

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

Can't find any sources about this organisation apart from some mentions and local coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable subject. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- It may be locally significant in Surrey; possibly also Hampshire or part of it, but I do not think it meets notability guidelines. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 15 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death of a Party (band)[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this band apart from the one debatable source that isn't a dead link currently in the article. Sam Walton (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good and it seems the current sources are the best there is. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Article subject receives only passing mentions in news references about a cricket squad and he does not appear to be notable in the film world. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteSources do not support notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. ABF99 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails notability, references doesn't have mentions for him. Possibly spam.Ireneshih (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myles.William[edit]

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

Fails the notability standard for musicians, with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Conifer (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:21, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tristam (music producer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Just a random artist. Also, from those 10 references of article, 2 are Youtube videos, one facebook page is cited, one time is cited Indiegogo and 2 times is cited Monstercat (associated label). So, there is a lack of serious reliable third-party sources from which we can establish notability of this artist. XXN, 10:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 18:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 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) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, Producers are really run of the mill - you'd need much better sourcing to show general notability. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the notability, or any potential for establishing it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 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) Kraxler (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pmdtechnologies[edit]

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

You can see the original before my trimming of primary sources here. The remaining are blogs, broken links and junk sources. Out of the sources provided on Talk this one looks usable, but none other do. Appears to be a routine company of only 70 employees. CorporateM (Talk) 04:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - Although I'm not a German speaker so I'll wait for others to comment, my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being this and this. Unless someone else can improve this, I'm then opening to draft/userfy the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probable Keep pending a complete overhaul, otherwise the move to userspace is a good call. This article from FAZ seems reliable, independent and non-trival coverage; still unsure about whether some of the articles from major websites listed on the talk page are notable or not, but the COI editor seems willing to work constructively within our guidlines so I'm willing to help make sure it's up to WP standards (and not advertising!). ‑‑mjgilson^T 15:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 2 August 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) 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Besides the prestigious nomination and the awards, Pmdtechnologies provides TOF-technology for the new generation 3D tablets and mobile phones which are the result of Google’s Project Tango – that alone should qualify for a keep. Cf. Canesta. 87.182.97.187 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- From a simple Google search, I can find several reliable references that have minor and major mentions of Pmdtechnologies.Ireneshih (talk) 12:51, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Myselfie 2[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film, released as far as I can tell only on YouTube, which makes no substantive claim of notability under WP:NFILM. I'm certainly not questioning the notability of the filmmaker's book I Hate Myselfie, but the short films he made in connection with it don't seem to have the independent notability necessary to stand alone as separate articles of their own — we don't, for instance, actually have an article about the first film in the series. I believe that a redirect to I Hate Myselfie is what's called for here; we can certainly touch on the short films briefly in the book's article (which is in need of significant expansion anyway), but don't need a separate article about the film as a separate topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A google news search reveals zero hits. A web search only turned up primary or non-reliable sources. Definitely does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as along with my searches it's obvious to see there are no good sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being waaaaay TOO SOON and having only just been released, lacks coverage to meet WP:NF. If or when it gets such coverage, we can undelete. Util then it might be mentioned in I Hate Myselfie and in Shane Dawson. 09:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major Islamic Political Alliances[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that it opens with Ever wondered how to make heads and tails of all these different groups attacking each other in the Middle East and around the world? This article will sort it out the multiple factions and why the Middle East continues year after year as the most chaotic place in the world. practically signals its intention to be a collection of OR/SYNTH in an essay style. Any underlying concept outside of the SYNTH that would merit an article would require a new title and new content (in other words, a new everything), and would probably already be covered in an already-existing article, perhaps Political aspects of Islam or Islamic state. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTESSAY. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is self-declared OR, and it's not a viable topic for an article given that it rests on an absurd oversimplification of international politics Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly not up to our standards. It is original research and a biased oversimplification. Chillum 14:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Khalili[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and GiantSnowman. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 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. The rough consensus here is that the book lacks reliable sources needed to show notability for an independent article. Consensus did not support the student newspaper as reliable, and there is no real consensus the Midwest Book Review is reliable either. Note that nothing in this decision prevents the mention of relevant content at the author's page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Mein (book)[edit]

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

Totally non notable. Worldcat [1] shows only 6 copies, and all the reviews are unreliable local sources. Unwisely accepted from AfC. Written by declared paid coi editor;a good example of why such articles need careful scrutiny--the check by AfC approval is not always sufficiently careful DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the paid editor on this one. As far as I can recall, college newspapers go through the editorial process, WP:BKCRIT, Item 1, reads: "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." Though not authoritative, WP:BKTS states that belonging to a national registry is a "nice to have." Library of Congress

If we are not going to abide by the published guidelines, and add other hurdles, I suggest that the guidelines be modified to reflect this and save everyone the trouble. Believe me, if the Wikipedia does not want these articles, I don't want to tell the client I can write them. But, I only have the policies and guidelines to go by.

I learned today that the book project(s) are not interested in review rankings, only reviews from professional critics. (So if you are not connected, your book goes nowhere on Wikipedia?) The film project seems to appreciate viewer aggregates -- go figure. Just for completeness: This deletion discussion appears to be the result of someone digging through my contributions while there is an ongoing discussion in AfC for another article earlier today.

Finally, I'm not finding where a WorldCat count has clear bearing on notability and why the nominating party is diverging from the guidelines. -- 009o9 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some proposed edits on Talk:Lo Mein (book), I was halfway through a clean up when I remembered that the Lo Mein is in Article space, so I can't add the edit within TOU. Should satisfy the Nobility guideline if I'm allowed to cite it. 009o9 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see a single usable referece.

The two additional ones are student newspapers, which are not reliable for book reviews, since they do not go through a professional editing process. The ones in the article are either from blogs, which in this context are not reliable/. The "finding aid" from the Library of Congress is simply their catalog record. A catalog record for a book does not mean its notable. it is simply outside the bounds of rationality than a popular fiction book that is in only 6 libraries can possibly be notable, and nobody but a coi editor would think so. Sunch coutnts are a shortcut, but they indicate very well why no reliable source has ever thought the book worth reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry for Student newspaper says that student newspapers are often integrated with the Journalism curriculum, which I would tend to agree is true in the colleges that have a journalism program. The University of Washington Journalism program is #28 in the US, Notre Dame Journalism is #927. I guess the "blog" you are referring to is curledup . com, which appears to have some editorial controls it appears some reviews are solicited, but the reviewer that panned Lo Mein is listed on the "Staff" page.

Actually, Eringer is blackisted in literary circles, "The Greatest Vendetta on Earth" (Salon) is a pretty interesting read. His great sin was becoming involved in persuading a tabloid journalist to work on other books rather than the book that his client (Feld Ringling Bros.) did not want published. From this and other escapades, there is no other author that I can think of who's life has been written about more in recent decades.

As for clarifying the Wikipedia guidelines for books, you might examine [2]. If there is a caveat that the reviews must be a paid content-experts and working with organizations with Wikipedia's "imprimatur," the "review" term in BKCRIT 1 should probably have a footnote or link. A clarification might save everyone a lot of trouble. -- 009o9 (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any significant sources for this book. The publisher (if I have the right URL) seems to have gone out of business ([3]), so it isn't easy to find information about it (e.g. is this a self-published book?). The fact of a Library of Congress copy merely means that copies were sent to the copyright office, as per copyright registration. The author is not included in any Booklist reviews (and Booklist reviews most books from US publishers). Rainbo Reviews does not appear to be an RS, and in any case the review is a single sentence. It is odd that the only substantial reviews are in student papers and one "scholarly blog" (but still a blog). LaMona (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation LaMona on your vote, Publisher's Weekly, [4] has 50 references to Corinthian Books, 23 titles on Open Library ranging from 1999 to 2006 it looks like one of the recessions got them. Lo Mein is in the middle of a series of three books that has Jeff Dalkin as the lead character. The third book, Spookaroonie (2002) [5] got a little more attention. I believe that this series is the author's jump from non-fiction to fiction. Due to Dalkin's Tourette syndrome induced foul language, this is likely not a series that libraries are going to go out of their way to catalog. Lo Mein,[6] has 11 WorldCat listings, Spookaroonie[7] has 16 WorldCat listings, one of them Harvard College Library if that means anything.

I'm checking the cites to see if this might be rolled into a three book article centered around the fictional character Jeff Dalkin, who's language from Lo Mein has made it into an Urban Slang Dictionary.[8] -- Cheers --009o9 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by the "foul language" quote, but libraries 1) catalog everything they buy 2) contain lots of foul language. If libraries don't buy the book it means that they either a) don't receive requests for it from their readers, b) it isn't from a publisher in their buying profile, and/or c) it didn't appear in the review sources they rely on (like Booklist). Also, OpenLibrary has no inclusion policy -- it attempts to gather information on "every book ever written," and accepts user-provided data, so inclusion in OL for books is like inclusion in IMDB for movies. That PW includes some Corinthian books but not this one is a strike AGAINST this book in terms of notability. I do see the PW review for Spookaroonie, but a PW review alone (<300 words) does not provide notability, and definitely not inherited notability. LaMona (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor comment: The editorial structure for the Notre Dame Observer can be found on page 10 [9]. The author of the Lo Mein book-review from Notre Dame is now a PhD and an assistant professor of French. [10] The managing editor of The Leger, University of Washington, was Regina Chynoweth for 2000-01 and Mary Roeder for 2001-02 [11] (page 3). The University of Washington book-review author wrote about 15 articles and is now a homemaker. With evidence ofWP:RS verified, this AfD nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. 009o9 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

none of this shows their reliability when they were undergraduates. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the above demonstrates that there was editorial oversight in place and in effect at the time of the writing. Could it be that Journalism and editorial policy is actually taught at colleges? And the advanced journalism students mentor the junior students? Ultimately, you haven't proven your case that these newspapers are not RS. 009o9 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself in complete agreement with LaMona, despite the article creator's large wall of text dumped here. Perhaps (by no means certain) the whole series of three books together would be sufficiently notable for a short article. More likely, a short paragraph in the article on the author, Robert Eringer, would suffice. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick two cents: for all of its fluffiness the article looks decent--until you check the references, which are not up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent incarnation,[12] removed verbiage that points to the author's notability. 009o9 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And added the mention in the Routledge Slang Dictionary in the new draft.[13] 009o9 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make me change my mind. The book doesn't become notable because its use of "cunt face" is cited, though I do appreciate your pointing me to that word. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was amusing that it got picked up, included the quote for completeness. It is an interesting read due to clever writing and I generally don't read fiction, that entire side of the industry is fluff to me. 009o9 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus/clarification needed Another editor has ~~voted~~ commented on and is modifying the article that up for discussion. I've suggested improvements on the talk page and my sandbox,[14] which have not been implemented. Am I, a paid editor, allowed to edit the article under WP:EDITATAFD? 009o9 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the additional of unreliable sources is not an improvement. In terms of improvement, though, the paragraph from "Curled-Up" is not reliable either, and despite the improvements that Drmies made in it, I think it equally should be removed from the article. That leaves no quotes from a review, because there are no RS reviews to quote. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

009o0, my edits were mostly cosmetic and, I would like to say, helped the article. Statements like "The protagonist's Tourette Syndrome is purposely developed to the point of tedium" can't be simply part of a plot summary (which requires no secondary sourcing) since it's clearly a matter of literary interpretation. The background stuff on the writer's career, that really had no place here since nothing in it related to this particular book. As for EDITATAFD, there's nothing in there that would have prevented my edits or would prevent you from improving the article: go for it, I say. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author's page. Sometimes student newspapers can be usable, depending on who publishes them and how prestigious the newspaper is considered. For example, an article in The Daily Princetonian would be something that could be usable since they've won a good number of awards and are well thought of. The student newspaper from my alma mater likely would not, as the newspaper is fairly tiny and hasn't really won any awards that I can remember. Whether these two could be used are somewhat iffy since they're run independently of their schools and are entirely student-run, which puts a monkey wrench into things. The other sources aren't the type that would show notability, so all we have here are two sources that are weak at best (assuming we can use them as a RS). We'd really need to have more than this to firmly establish that this book could have an article outside of its author. (Full disclosure, I've declined an AfC submission about another book by this author.) The thing about the "two or more non-trivial published works" is that it's fairly rare that an article will be kept on two book reviews unless those reviews are from incredibly well thought of publications that put a lot of thought and depth into the work, pretty much along the lines of Michiko Kakutani reviewing something in the New York Times and even then I'm not sure that a review by her (along with a review by an equally well thought of literary critic) would be enough for an article. The type of sources that would hold that much weight are usually books published through academic/scholarly publishers and even then they'd have to make a strong assertion of notability in the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, or Merge Very Sparingly (which would be difficult since his other novels aren't covered), to Robert Eringer. It's a 232-page novella with zero RS reviews. It does not meet WP:NBOOK. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's recap Since I can't get a yes/no answer whether I (a paid writer) can edit the article in AfD while in the mainspace, I recap here. I appreciate the votes to keep the redirect and I'm planning to start a RfC concerning the NBOOK guidelines not meeting the expectations many of the editors here, so others won't run into the same problem.

Notability, here was intended to go to NBOOK (W:NBCRIT) #5 as a "discriminate collection" (WP:DISCRIMINATE) of the author's works (The author is notable for his non-fiction, but nice to have a fiction sample).

. A phrase from the book has made the Routledge Slang Dictionary, 2008 and 2015[15][16]
. The book was reviewed in Notre Dame Observer,[17] that author is now a PhD holding assistant French professor,[18] (editorial oversight structure is demonstrated above).
. An MSM book review has turned up as the Google spiders work continue to dig back to 2000, a short review from a paper owned by, Townnews.[19]
. A review in the University of Washington Ledger, the staff of that paper is currently paid, (editorial oversight structure is demonstrated above).[20]
. As an NBCRIT prerequisite, the book must be listed in the country's registry, Lo Mein is listed in the Library of Congress,[21] has 11 entries in WorldCat not 6.[22]

Since I don't have consensus to edit in the articlespace and other editors have removed content, I'm keeping an updated version in my sandbox.[23] Here is what I've found on guidance for college newspapers:

WP:UNIGUIDE: Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, but these sources are not as strong a source to demonstrate notability as mainstream news organizations, and they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, both college sources have nationally ranked journalism programs(noted above), an editorial structure has been demonstrated (above) and both are WP:INDY from any bias the college itself may impose. Once again, the claim here is that the author (Robert Eringer) is notable and a discriminate collection of his work is allowable under WP:BKCRIT #5 009o9 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC) P.S. the more I look at the Lo Mein topic, the more Google seems to dig up on it. 009o9 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's the thing, and the takeaway you should learn from this experience: If significant coverage of the topic you are thinking about writing an article on occurs only in two college newspapers and a blog, it does not meet notability, so do not write an article on it. That much I think should be obvious to anyone who is not involved. Your arguments about where the book is listed are specious and have nothing to do with notability for books. Lastly, Robert Eringer is not sufficiently notable that anything he ever set his pen to might merit a Wikipedia article; the fact that you believe this to be true shows either your lack of understanding of Wikipedia, or your over-involvement with this article. While it is expected that article creators will wish to defend their creations at AfD, you are really going off on a deep end here. The only thing that has merit in your last post is the Argus Observer review. If there had been a handful of periodical reviews like that, it might have conferred notability. But two college newspapers and a blog do not, and none of those should even be entering this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! --Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender, if that is the case, then the term, "and the author's life" should be removed from WP:BKCRIT #5. Currently, the guideline does not say that the author is required to be notable for his books, which is why I wrote the article on it. Otherwise, I'm sure that there are a handful of reviews out there like the Argus Observer buried in newspaper archives. Like I said, I will read up on how to take this to RfC, the guidelines do not represent the expectations here.009o9 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments proposal to add the findings here to clarify WP:NBOOK Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(books)#Criteria_for_Notability_does_not_reflect_current_consensus 009o9 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator has now canvassed this AfD at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cooperation#An_interesting_AfD_discussion. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the original AfD, does it not say "Written by declared paid coi editor"? Please re-read WP:APPNOTE first bullet point. 009o9 (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read WP:APPNOTE. WikiProject Cooperation is not directly related to Lo Mein (book), and this is an AfD, not a discussion of paid editing (which by the way WikiProject Cooperation is also not directly related to even if it were). Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much paid about editing, otherwise why would it be mentioned in the nomination? The WikiProject Cooperation article lede paragraph reads as follows: The Cooperation Wikiproject facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia. We provide education and outreach to public relations and marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers.

Additionally, the nominator left this on my talk page concerning this discussion: Most people here only tolerate paid editors very reluctantly, and you are not likely to get the benefit of the doubt. This has so far not come up principally with books and authors--its come up mostly with businessmen and companies, and the current trend is to find some reason to delete anything by a paid editor unless it is unquestionably notable and unquestionably neutral.[24] 009o9 (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the WikiProject as Wikiproject Corporation, mistaking it for WP:WikiProject Business. In any case, this is NOT a discussion about paid editing; it is an AfD, and you should NOT have canvassed on WikiProject Cooperation. No one in this entire AfD discussion has mentioned paid editing except you. DGG mentioned it in his nomination as something that at AfC needs careful scrutiny. None of the actual !voters or discussers have mentioned it, and it has no bearing on our !votes. I am not familiar with LaMona, but I can assure you that Drmies, Tokyogirl79, Randykitty, and even DGG are very experienced, very thoughtful, very fair, and very circumspect Wikipedia editors and !voters, and we are basing our opinions on the merits, not on COI (which as I mentioned, only you have brought up, time and again). I think you should take to heart what DGG stated in the post you linked -- you are letting your COI blind you, and your endless attempts to sway the matter are actually doing you and your goals a disservice rather than the reverse. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your opinion on notifying Wikiproject Corporation, this discussion is clearly of interest to that group. Besides, with the well published Wikipedia bias against paid editing, none of them are going to vote here. I want them to be aware of the moving the goal post and subjective reference evaluation tactics that are practiced in AfD.

It is funny, you just listed the exact same set of delete voters from my other AfD [25]. (1384 administrators, and I've drawn the same several twice, voting lock step, I should play the lottery.) They were more careful not to announce their paid editing bias in that discussion, but when they notified each other, "canvassing" as you put it, they were very clear about the content being paid in those communications. I would address a simple refImprove tag, just as diligently on the article's talk page as an Afd, but my first two nominations went straight to speedy or AfD without any other comment. Thus, the difference between a normal discussion and a public deletion discussion is the paid disclosure. Another article, judged "probably notable" by the nominator is now in MfD, while still in AfC.[26]-- 009o9 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Riddic, LisaAnn (2000-08-29). "Reading Report LisaAnn Riddic / Argus Observer / August 29, 2000". Argus Observer. Archived from the original on 2015-08-16. Retrieved 2015-08-16.
2. "Artist creates live art in new book". Argus Observer. 2000-08-08. Archived from the original on 2015-08-16. Retrieved 2015-08-16.
3. From the Editorial Reviews at Amazon (link): "Lo Mein goes a little crazy with everything from Bruce Willis to a shooting spree in Disney World... The deaths in Disney World have a twinge of twisted humor; the murder spree exacts the ultimate revenge on the Disneyfication of the world. If any greater lesson is to be derived from "Lo Mein" it's Eringer's denouncement of the irrational litigation rampant in American society compiled with the large amounts of power in the hands of such entities as Walt Disney and CNN."
  Used with permission from Ms. Kate Westrich of The Post. (The Post (Athens, OH), April 6, 2000) -- The Post, Athens, OH, April 6, 2000
4. "Be warned. You do have to be able to cope with an infinity of explicit cursing and murder. Of course..." -- James A. Cox, Midwest Book Review, May 2000
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lo Mein to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Lo Mein was reviewed in The Post, the Midwest Book Review, and two articles in the Argus Observer. There is plenty of material to justify a standalone article about this notable book.
Cunard (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that @Cunard, I had forgotten that those reviews are RS, even if the community says Amazon is not, I broke them out and will contact the organizations for reprints. --Cheers-- 03:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the community that Amazon itself is not a reliable source that establishes notability. But Amazon's aggregating of third-party book reviews like those from The Post and the Midwest Book Review is reliable. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in its current incarnation is on the talk page. The last time I edited an article in AfD/mainspace, I was threatened with a topic ban,[27] so I don't feel comfortable updating the article itself. 009o9 (talk) 009o9 (talk) 03:27, 16 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Vershinin[edit]

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

Just a photographer trying to advertise his business, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Alleged awards (now removed as unsourced) are impossible to verify and probably not notable to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A google news search shows that a person of this name had at least one photo which was picked up by the news services, and he also (or someone with the same name) writes for an online web site called Russia Beyond The Headlines, but I can't find any articles about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found no references in the web, other than his website. Article written by an single SPA account. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unsure about Vershinin's notability at this time, but do note that some of the deleted awards are apparently real as shown on this page: https://thepanoawards.com/2014-winners-gallery/ TheMindsEye (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - awards can be real, and the subject might even have won them, but they are not necessarily notable just because they exist; and the mere winning of them may not constitute notability either. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it currently stands it makes no case for notability. Scanning the first couple of pages of Google responses shows no sign of notability either. -Lopifalko (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3D Anamorphic Street Art[edit]

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

One-sentence stub. The only citation is on the image (which is copyrighted and will probably be deleted from Commons). I'm not currently really seeing enough on this term per se on Google to fill an entire article. In any case, should probably either be merged into something, or draftified or userfied until it's fleshed out enough to exist as an article (assuming that's possible). Softlavender (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think youre right Softlavender I know there is another article that mentions it, maybe someone can make a heading in there and include this. I think it might be something like street art or chalk art (the proposed article). Thanks and Im writing a response to your allegations right now. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia ^《Talk》 18:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect, since this technique is not and never has been called "3D Anamorphic Street Art" but Trompe-l'œil and we already have an article on the subject. No redirect, as "3D art" has two specific meanings in art, neither of which is this: as another name for sculpture, particularly things like bas-relief which aren't always thought of as "sculptures", and as a term of art in computing for the calculations which produce 2-dimensional output which appears to depict three-dimensional objects (think Pixar). – iridescent 21:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth adding a sentence or two to the "Other forms" section of the Trompe-l'œil article to cover the chalk-on-sidewalk format, which is a particular form which I've seen in many places. BMK (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. One-sentence stubs are one thing, but this doesn't meet WP:V; its only ref (and the link doesn't work) is to an unreliable source. Miniapolis 23:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR sub-sub-stub DICDEF whatever. BMK (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is called Trompe-l'œil. Regardless of the medium or venue.--Savonneux (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we have an article on it, and noting that its creator, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia, has been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note (if anyone cares): I fixed the link to the citation, which had an incorrect | in it. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diggin' Elroy[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't believe this page should be deleted because I have very good sources including being very good friends with the author and also having read this book. Please give me a chance to continue editing this page until it properly meets Wikipedia standards. It would also be very helpful to edit this page and improve it to help create a better encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousPersonUserMan (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not sure who wrote the above comment, but in response to it, editing won't help the article meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Take a look at WP:GNG and in this case, since its a book, WP:NBOOK. They can explain those criteria, and you'll see this book does not appear to meet them. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. A [google search turned up only primary hits on the book (mentions by the author or press releases), or mere mentions of the book, such as GoodReads (those second show the book exists, but not that it is notable). A news search only turned up a press release. A google books search was also no help for notability purposes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this book has attracted no attention in RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Also, clear COI considering that the article creator is, in his own words, "very good friends with the author" Jcmcc (Talk) 01:02, 14 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pius X School, Chula Vista[edit]

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

Article had previously been tagged for notability since 2011. Having looked at what I could find on the internet, I was not able to find a non-primary sources that provides significant coverage of the subject of this article. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be redirected to Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego? I notice, though, that the Diocese article does not list elementary schools, so this school is not mentioned there. So maybe a better outcome would be Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- The consensus is that elementary schhols are NN. The most they should have is a brief mention in a list of schools in their area or covered by their school board. In this case the board is presumably the diocese. Does that suggest adding to that article a list of elementary schools run by the diocese? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis above. I'm fine with a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego if the school is mentioned there (actually, is not). Cavarrone 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course, as the standard practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we always do. If there is not a list of schools in the article on the diocese, one needs to be added. That it is not there presently is no reason not to make it. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 15 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Clube da Catumbela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sport Clube da Catumbela

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

The club does not currently and never before existed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmir144 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator can in good faith claim this club never existed. The article states it won the Angola championship in both 1945 and 1958, and cites the reliable source RSSSF. As to notability, any football club playing or having played (notability is not temporary) at the top national level in its country is considered notable, this one won the national championship, twice. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Struway, club has won a national championship, is notable per WP:FOOTYN with a nod to WP:NTEMP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs) 08:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:02, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Wakatsuki[edit]

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

Actor known mainly for one role as Asuna in the live-action Negima series. She also sang with Yuki Kajiura. Is that enough to retain her page? Has no solo music listings for singles and albums according to Oricon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My news sweeps, including this one of Japanese media were dry heaves.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 14 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S.B. Benfica (Benguela)[edit]

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

Club does not currently and never existed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmir144 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure how the nominator can in good faith claim this club never existed. The article states it won the Angola championship in 1943, and cites the reliable source RSSSF: the club is listed under the name at which the page was created, Sport Benguela e Benfica, from which the nominator has moved it. Suggest that when this AfD closes, the page is moved back to the original name. As to notability, any football club playing or having played (notability is not temporary) at the top national level in its country is considered notable: this one won the national championship. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Struway, club has won a national championship, is notable per WP:FOOTYN with a nod to WP:NTEMP. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is in a right state, but the notability of the club is satisfied. Improve, not delete. – Pee Jay 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway and this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:02, 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. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keita Haga[edit]

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

No independent notability from Fate/stay night soundtracks, in which he did the arrangements. Even though one of the Fate/stay night singles reached number 13 on Oricon, that only helps the notability for the performing artist rather than the arranger. Oricon profiles do not identify his works separately. Recommend redirect to Fate/stay night#Music. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sourcing outside Anime News Network or in-depth coverage to demonstrate basic notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that shows that this person is notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RELEVANT - ETHER is one of the greatest diss tracks in the history of the genre esp vis-a-vis Drake feud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.53.253 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Z–Nas feud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jay-Z–Nas feud

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

A list of trivial WP:FANCRUFT. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. The article was stiff and some parts were unsourced. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for own page per WP:GNG. Would say merge with Jay-Z and/or Nas, but this is already covered on both those pages. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a particularly notable feud. A redirect would not work. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much like the other ones nominated recently, there's not much here. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 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) 01:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GFriend[edit]

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

Most of the sources are charts on the groups sells or stuff just saying they are a group very little of it actually shows they are notable. I do not feel the group has enough activities and general visibility that their should be an article for them already. It seems like a lot of filler. Peachywink (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Peachywink (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most the sources and information of any rookie group on Wikipedia only includes their charts, sales etc, GFriend being a 6 months old rookie and already being on the rise, i pretty much believe they are notable enough to have their own wiki page. GFriend has many activities but due to people removing it again and again on their page, we decided to only keep the major appearances like on Running man and King Of Mask Singer, compared to the other rookies that also do have a wikipedia page like for example Sonamoo, GFriend is the one at the upper hand when it comes to activities, recognition and notability. I believe this article should stay, GFriend had their second comeback 3 days ago and the activities you claim that they lack will also come along. If you request for GFriend's page deletion then it should apply to the other rookie pages that have the exact same amount of information on them. So like i said, the deletion of this page would be very out of place and one sided. (talk) 2:00, 26 July 2015
- Comment I wanted to add in here that guest appearance are not usually considered notable but for large programs I would be willing to see an exception if they got into it during the debut year because that does show huge advancement. However aside from the groups 2 music videos none of the filmography section is sourced, that means the all the shows cameos ect.. Also the only sources for the music videos are there official YouTube Videos.Peachywink (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's my mistake that i did not source them properly, i took the part of editing G-Friend's wiki page for all these months, and i'm willing to fix my mistakes and properly source because i'm still learning how to edit on wikipedia i did not do it intentionally. The official link of their YouTube MV is enough of a reference that the MV was indeed released under their name and their company's name, useless articles saying "G-Friend has released their new M/V" Seemed useless to me thus i didn't cite them., i was actually already planning to go through all the sources and re-source and remove what's a filler in fact. I still stand by my point that this article should be kept, G-Friend is showing a huge, huge advancement, and just as we speak their company updated their schedule with MV featuring on other artists' songs, appearances etc, so again like i said, G-Friend out of all the rookies right now, is indeed the most notable one and it makes absolute no sense to me that their article should be removed. The sourcing will be fixed now.--Soyeony (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can understand forgetting to source something and during the time the page is up for discussion you are free to fix those issues to try to establish the groups notability. As for Music video sourcing the reason just the YouTube videos don't work is because it just shows the video exists not the fact that it's notable. To do that you need to find an article, it doesn't have to be real long but it can't be 2 sentences, That talks about the music video. To be honest most k-pop pages fail to adhere to this standard but it is in fact still a standard. So if you can find an article talking about the video reaching a million views quickly or discussing the video itself for almost any reason that would be a better source than just the YouTube video. Here is Lady Gaga's page Lady Gaga videography, while this page is NOT a perfect example, you can see that the music videos are sourced using articles about the video rather than the videos themselves.Peachywink (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Indeed, just like you said, KPOP tends to fail to that standard, but i still went back and sourced what i could find on Mwave and Naver which are considered notable since i checked many KPOP pages on wikipedia and they source from them and i will continue to do so until the article will be considered well sourced and up to the standard. For the music video appearances however, for the member Sowon to be specific, that i can't cite, because that happened when she was still a trainee in another company couple years ago, i added her appearances in GFriend's article because i believe that a new G-Friend fan or someone that didn't know would like to see the member of their favorite group appear in an MV, but sadly i can't source it since like i said it happened years ago and she was just a trainee so you can't find any articles about her in that time frame. The other parts of the article i sourced most of it and what's left un-sourced will be sourced soon, i'll go get the articles from Korean portals since the English articles i find are mostly from Allkpop and sites alike that are not reliable. Again, having their article deleted just for that is harsh and excuse me for what i'm going to say but it seems a very biased judgement to me, Lovelyz, Sonamoo and i can go on and on they all lack the exact same thing as G-Friend's page that's why it seems to me that it was a biased decision in the first place to nominate this page for deletion. My standpoint is very clear, the article should be kept, i don't think of it as a filler like you do, and as a follower of the group since the day they debuted it doesn't contain any wrong information either. --Soyeony (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
starting indents over- @Soyeony My reply had little to do with GFriends AFD so I put it on your user page.Peachywink (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you replied to any of the points i just made about why i stand by that this page should be kept and i'm still confused as to why this page is even nominated because just like i stated in my previous comment the reasons you gave do not make sense to me and alert an alarm of biasing. The article could easily be fixed with some edits, which i've done and i'm still doing, deletion is not the way to do it.--Soyeony (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - you answered while I was still typing...I type slow. Sorry for the confusion.Peachywink (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - adding on here but I've pointed you in the direction of fixing the page in the off chance you find more information to make them notable because so far I do not see enough notable things for this group but that's why it a vote. people can all interpret standards differently.Peachywink (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They've charted, have independent sources, that's enough per WP:Musicbio Asdklf; (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per User:Asdklf;. Also, individual members have appeared on various notable programs, as well as the group receiving worldwide attention for various reasons. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this survives the AfD (which I hope it does), I'm going to make a move request as the title of the article should be G-Friend (band) per WP:BANDNAME. Hyphen included with the disambiguation of band. Tibbydibby (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they have 2 album and a number of songs (Toomass (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep article is well sourced, their songs charted on gaon. Donottroll (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a rookie group their songs sell really well and are charting really high, the article has been sourced correctly. User:4minute lover (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSICBIO "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." => http://www.webcitation.org/6am9NjH5y Ctrl+F "GFRIEND". Gaon Chart. Duh. — regards, Revi 12:04, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Pagot[edit]

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

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

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

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

Although this has been around for years , the only refs confirms that he exists and is a cinematographer. Nothing suggests any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Franz Pagot is on IMDB and he has worked on famous films. Checked with AIC, GBCT, BKSTS and BAFTA and he is a member. Notability is also shown by several articles easy to find just doing a quick google search on his name such as here this article on foreign press, or this one therefore he meets WP:GNG— 89.240.106.254 (talk • The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC). • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep I was told of this page and just want to add that Franz Pagot is a well known figure in the film industry.--Admanente (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)— Admanente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I have worked with Franz Pagot and believe me when I say he is definitely well known; notability surely applies in his case more than others cinematographers— 79.31.153.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This article is extremely lacking in good sources. The claim about whose music videos he worked on is not at all supported by the link for example. The coverage does not come anywhere close to rising to the level required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references and good sources in the article and music videos do not have an official database such as IMDB for feature films, in any case there is enough on the internet and anywhere else to verify who is and what he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acquadiva (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Acquadiva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can add more comment but please don't repeat your !vote each time. Nthep (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the preceding SPA !voters is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Unstruck their !votes. Kraxler (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried Google search, but found no reliable sources with significant coverage [28]. I only found some sources that mention him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Not sure which Google did you try (your reference takes to Russian search finds) but if you Google his name 18,500 search finds come up in 2.8 seconds ^[1] and that I call it impressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acquadiva (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Russian but Serbian (or anyway, Serbian-market). -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources. 18,000 Google hits are useles if none of them is reliable independen source with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Pagot was born in the small town of Conegliano near Venice, from a modest family. Splendid. I'm sure we're all in favor of modesty. Would those who think that the article is worthwhile perhaps purge the section "Career and Personal Life" for what might strike the biographee as immodesty? As it is, this section is sopping with peacockery (and perhaps BS), inclining me toward deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: The observation above is gratuitous and vitriolic for no reason: many biographies on Wikipedia start like that, it puts the person in context, opposed to 'from a wealthy family and a silver spoon in his mouth' background or 'son of 'insert famous parent'. I have met Franz, he is very humble and modest, a hard working no nonsense person, and a self made successful cinematographer. There is no peacockery or self congratulating bs, and I am sure he did not write or submit his Wikipedia entry either. Why there are 'people' wasting time trying to delete this entry truly baffles me.... envy maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acquadiva (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

"... an elite army unit ... in various well known advertising agencies ... highly commended work ... one of the best ads ever ... the blockbuster Happy New Year ... several black belts in many disciplines (Judo, Jujitsu, Karate, Kickboxing)", etc. As a modest person, Pagot would, I expect, be appalled by this kind of talk. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls below the notability standard. Lots of very trivial mentions in passing in articles about other things and other people do not make him notable. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When someone like Franz pagot has a career spanning way before the advent of Internet it is very difficult to find a reference online of certain facts, and that goes for most people, including celebrities. It is unquestionable Franz Pagot has a successful career with some great achievement and there are plenty of references in the article. Notability is proved, no doubt, allso with his work for important charities, all you need to do is check the cover of one of his books Immersive 3-D and you'll se that on the cover it states clearly that all proceeds will go to two Children hospitals. See here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0956818072, it also mentions in the book he is friend of Oscar winner (Slumdog Millionaire) Resul Pookutty, who wrote a section of the book. Franz pagot is obvioulsy well known and well respected amongst his peers in the film industry. — 62.192.26.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:19, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC).[reply]

This is a better link to try. Narrow it to "news" and you get a handful of trivial results. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.it/search?q=franz+pagot&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=Tp_DVbm4J4ObgwT2xo2gAQ

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His book "immersive photography" is not even in worldcat; his novels are, but they are self published, and in either 1 or zero libraries. Not possibly notable as an author. Ashe haswon no major awards, I'm a little skeptical of the claims. He does not seem to have been director of photography of any major films. His role in Prince of Thieves was as "stedicam utility", a very subsidiary position . Well-respected by his peers" even if it could be proven, is not notability. He certainkly seems to be well liked by the people who have given personal testimonials here, but that isnt relevant for an encycopedia . DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- After reading the bio, I was left with the question, "What has he done that is really notable?" and my answer was "Nothing". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Jackson (producer)[edit]

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

Not noteworthy. This person is an amateur online producer. There are thousands of people like him. Impulsion (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, whether professional or not, I find it hard to believe that his output is sufficient to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good and although there a few linking articles for a redirect target, this is probably best to deleted for now especially for vulnerable BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lloyd (footballer, born 1872)[edit]

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

This player has not played a match in a fully professional league. He played in the Southern League for Thames Ironworks, Brentford and Fulham and never appeared in the Football League. He is not listed in the very reliable Football League Players' Records 1888 to 1939 by Mike Joyce. Beatpoet (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - played for various clubs which now play in fully pro leagues, but at the time played in regional semi-pro/amateur football, so fails WP:FOOTYN, also fails WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The criterion about fully professional leagues is somewhat irrelevant here, as at that time there were plenty of amateurs playing in the Football League. If this was the sole criterion, you will need to delete hundreds of perfectly sourced and well written articles in Category:Southern Football League players. Why does an article about an obscure player in the early days of Manchester United merit keeping, but not one from the early days of West Ham United. Ooh! Sorry, I forgot. Anything goes if it's Manchester Bloody United. 78.147.148.249 (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP 78.147.148.249.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am renowned for usually being a staunch WP:NFOOTBALL supporter - but given that this player's career pre-dates the professional era, I don't think it really applies here, and instead I would argue his number of appearances in one of the top leagues of the time, as well as the coverage in books, means he is probably notable. Giant Snowman 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I don't think the project would gain by deleting articles like this because of a strict adherence to a guideline that isn't really applicable. And credit to those who have expanded the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He played in a predecessor of League Division 3. According to Southern Football League, its premier division was in 1920 absorbed by the Football League. As someone playing for one of that leagues founder clubs, I think the article is worth keeping. He may not quite fit the criteria applied to later periods, but in dealing with more distant periods, rules applicable to the present day when professional sport is ubiquitous cannot necessarily be applied to earlier ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 14 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 deleted as A7 (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Youngjae[edit]

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

Youngjae has no significant solo work outside of work he has done with his group and This page is not standard (Pikhmikh (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The page is mostly blank has no sources and the artist has no work outside of their group.Peachywink (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:37, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baifox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Baifox (2nd nomination)

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:N. Article is simply a description of it's service components. It's lone reference is to its own website. Tmsevre1 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 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. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audacity Innovative[edit]

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

Part of a promotional walled garden built around Cristhian Andrews. Non notable company. Lacks coverage, awards, recognition. Article has a mass of sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about this company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another walled garden article around the Black Moses film, likely paid-for and fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other Andrews articles have been deleted. This should follow. Does not meet notability guidelines. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found no good coverage and we can simply wait until that happens. SwisterTwister talk 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:58, 14 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. This is a combination ofa WP:SNOW deletion and a speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). Criterion G4 refers to "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". There is always room for debate as to what is "sufficiently identical and unimproved", and this time there has been a careful attempt to avoid deletion by putting at the top of the article a trivial amount of information about something which was not the subject of the article previously discussed, and using that trivial content as the basis of the title of the new article. However, it is clear that in fact this article is in fact a re-creation of an article deleted numerous times under different titles, and discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight. The trivial content about one contest organised by "KunLun Fight" placed at the top of the page, above the main content of the article, is not sufficient to alter the fact that it is essentially the same article. In addition to that, there is no realistic chance that this one competition organised by a non-notable company would have been found notable enough to keep anyway. I will also mention that the editor who created this article (a) has created it numerous times under numerous titles and it has been deleted each time, and (b) has previously been blocked for repeatedly creating articles following deletion at AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of the King Middleweight Tournament 2015[edit]

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

Non notable kickboxing event from a minor kickboxing organization (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KunLun fight). There is no significant independent coverage of this event, only routine sports reporting, and nothing to indicate it meets WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The organization itself was deleted as non-notable through AfD but constantly recreated under different titles to the point the author was subjected to a month long ban. Frankly this article is just another attempt with only a minor differences mostly in the title. The titling (claiming it is about the event rather than the organization) makes a speedy deletion as Repost difficult even though by all rights it should be.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I only want to show the The Return of the King Middleweight Tournament 2015, your can help me to improve it, but not delete it more times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.72.128.254 (talk) 07:35, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lissette Neri[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage. Has her first top tier fight coming up at the end of the month, but assuming she'll get 3 top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article was created WP:TOOSOON. I have no objections to it being saved in user space until she becomes notable. Papaursa (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Just getting a top tier fight is not enough for notability even if she wins the fight at the end of the month. Much too soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. May be eventually be notable after more success, even if temporary as per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. --Acurry4 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 14 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. Relisted three times, not enough input, and vague disagreeing rationales. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Shaw (photographer)[edit]

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

This article has referenciness but the sources are all primary (e.g. Microsoft said X, sourced to Microsoft saying X). No independent sources are cited. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks secondary sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shaw's notability is probably best evidenced by his publications, there's a review [29], an interview [30], a review of one of his videos [31], a review here [32], and there'd be a ton more in dead tree archives of Outdoor Photographer, Popular Photography, etc. These meet GNG and AUTHOR, and the NANPA award is pretty much the highest honor from the largest nature photography organization in the world, perhaps qualifying him under ANYBIO as well. I would agree with the nominator about one thing, the Microsoft thing is not convincing. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 16:38, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LeafFilter North Inc[edit]

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

Blatant spam. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are a mishmash of dead links and lists that happen to include this company along with many others, demonstrating only that the subject exists and is utterly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. WP is WP:NOTADVERTISING. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have 20+ something offices and are the top-ranked vendor by Consumer Reports. The Awards spam was easy to cleanup. I would lean towards stub and watchlist, but I haven't done much of a search for sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither having multiple offices nor being established by a notable athlete make the company notable. My good-faith search for appropriate sourcing only turned up press releases. VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest considerablr improvement for sources and notability, with some of the best results here. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to LeafFilter (gutter guard) as the product synonymous with the company passes notability under Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independence_of_sources - specifically a consumer watchdog organization has published a report on the specific product^[1]. This is considered a primary test of notability, and other sources are available^[2]^[3]. The company does not seem to have the same notability but could still be mentioned as its manufacturer within the article on the product. --Acurry4 (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source presented (Consumer reports) only mentions the product a single time, in a throwaway comment in a sentence about gutter guards in general. That is inadequate to establish notability (or, for that matter, write a verifiable article). VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Steele[edit]

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

Deprodded by Subtropical-man for some nonsensical reason, Anyway Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only an award nomination and some minor mainstream media appearances. The bulk of her porn press coverage appears to be republished press releases and a minor story in Adult Video News. Lacks significant coverage by multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original prod rationale. It should had not deprodded in the first place without providing a rationale nor improving the article. Cavarrone 17:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprodding clearly unsuitable articles to force foregone AFDs is not only disruptive but wastes a lots of editor time to consider an article. I know it goes against the ethos of PROD but I will consider some community process to prevent this behaviour if this continues. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original PROD, which remains uncontested. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:47, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Waugaman[edit]

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

This article contains no citations to reliable third party sources about the subject. The biographical information tracks the (self-written) biography from Professor Waugaman’s personal page at Georgetown University^[4]. To my knowledge there are no reliable third party biographies of Professor Waugaman that are not based on his self-written biography.

:By that, do you mean that the article makes use of professor Waugaman's cv and other professionally relevant documents? I've added an abundance of new material to the article - frankly it was pretty weakly written, but what can we expect from a publisher that empowers Mr. Reedy to define what constitutes a "reliable source." I've done the best I can as a first pass to clean it up. If you folks are going to delete this, you ought to at least delete a version of the article that doesn't make Wikipedia look incompetent, wouldn't you agree?--BenJonson (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what aspect of Professor Waugaman’s work meets the requirement of WP:N. Though the current article does not refer to his professional affiliation with Georgetown University or his position as a clinical track professor emeritus -- possibly because these were in the title of his personal page at Georgetown and therefore not part of the text that was paraphrased in writing the WP page -- it would seem to fall within the scope of WP:SCHOLAR, and the criteria listed there.

Per WP:SCHOLAR, “Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study.” Dr. Waugaman’s Google Scholar entry lists a number of works published in the areas of psychoanalysis, psychology and Shakespeare studies. Many of these have been cited in subsequent works; but on closer examination, the overwhelming number of citations in the field of Shakespeare scholarship were in later works by Professor Waugaman. Though Professor Waugaman has published many works on Shakespeare, many of the publications were in journals dedicated to the Oxfordian fringe theory of Shakespeare authorship.

His scholarship has had negligible impact on the field. Gary Taylor, George Matthew Edgar Professor of English at Florida State University, writing as co-editor of Italian scholarly journal Memoria di Shakespeare, wrote to Waugaman about a paper submitted for publication that it “seem to me profoundly unscholarly, and . . . would have the effect of undermining the credibility and status of other contributions to the volume.”^[5] This is not submitted with the POV that Taylor is right and Waugaman is wrong; only as evidence that Waugaman’s scholarship has been largely ignored and has had no notable impact on the field. Bomagosh (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning, have you by any chance actually read any of Dr. Waugaman's scholarly articles, or are you shooting in the dark here, and counting on the reliability of Mr. Reedy for your representations? Do you understand the relevance of your own carefully guarded statement that Professor Taylor was *"*writing* as a co-editor" of the Journal (i.e., that he was NOT a co-editor, never was and never has been, except on one issue in which he was gerrymandered in to deliver the hatchet job *after* the paper had already been accepted by other editors)? its really kind of a disgrace to wikipedia when such decontextualized data are used to make an argument--BenJonson (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO as per nom. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Meets WP:SCHOLAR. Key phrase in quote is "...on the field of study." The Oxfordian/Shakespeare authorship research field is the field of study here, not Shakespeare studies in general. In that regard, Dr. Waugaman's citations and published articles would put him within the category of notable/passing the "professor test." Verkinto 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Meets WP:SCHOLAR. See extensive further discussion on this page, as well as the efficiently updated version of the page in question, which backs up Verkinto's point in many ways, including pointing out that one of Professor Waugaman's collaborates was Harold Searles, whom even Wikipedia (alas for the deleters of the world) describes as "one of the pioneers of psychiatric medicine specialising in psychoanalytic treatments of schizophrenia."--BenJonson (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you do not get to opine on this matter, since it is an SAQ-related topic and you are "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, broadly construed across all namespaces." Tom Reedy (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you need to produce some reliable, independent sources stating such, not to mention some reliable, independent sources that classify the "Oxfordian/Shakespeare authorship research field" as anything other than a fringe theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Waugaman) Why couldn't YOU do this? One has to wonder. Do you even know the names of the professional journals in which Professor Waugaman has published, Mr Reedy? Cut out the third partyism for a change and stick to the point at hand, which is whether Professor Waugaman passes a notability test. Verkinto says he does. I agree.--BenJonson (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have not. I don't set the standards of reliable third-party sources; you need to read WP:RS for that. I also decline becoming embroiled in an edit war ("going to the mat", as you put it) with you, a topic-banned editor, and instead have reported your actions to an administrator. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In FACT," quoth the ex-sherrif's office public relations manager Reedy? "In fact'" Mr.Reedy you are presently powerless. You don't know how powerless you are. Your reversion of my revisions to the page, the wholesale, prejudicial, and abrupt manner of expression, which rejects the ideas along with the person, now join all the other elements of the public case regarding your errors and dishonesty. You have no right to revert a comprehensive new, improved version of this page in the midst of a discussion like this one. You have made something of a career out of attacking dedicated scholars like Dr. Waugaman, have as is well known repeatedly removed citations to Dr. Waugaman's publications, including articles in Oxford University Press's *Notes and Queries*, from this article. You then performed the miracle of getting wikipedia to blacklist professor Waugaman's website. That was quite a trick, Tom: What's next? Could it be that the world needs a better Tom Reedy, one less preoccupied with the fantasy of being the Texas Ranger of the Shakespeare question? I'm sorry to be so blunt, Tom, but you put me to it, you really do, by your brusque style of collaboration. One might almost suspect that your intent is not collaborate, as Wikipedians should do, but rather to dominate, bully, and get your ways by Jesuitical tricks and doublings. You are about as capable, Mr. Reedy, of evaluating Mr. Waugaman's notability in this case as a hyena is capable of passing himself off as a bookstore cat. Recuse yourself, for shame. --BenJonson (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you remove the personal attacks and read your talk page and answer Ed. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distracting with epithets doesn't alter the category error. Measure the noteworthiness of Dr. Waugaman within the context of the field in which his entry was written. If you're going to classify his Wikipedia entry under Shakespeare Authorship, then that's the category in which his noteworthiness should be judged. Verkinto 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the article, then please do so, Verkinto. In my opinion, Dr. Waugaman is notable, but if there is strong objection to the present wording, it should just be changed, not turned into an excuse for deletion. Thanks.--BenJonson (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Waugaman uses the title "faculty expert on Shakespeare for media contacts," not "Shakespeare authorship," so his claimed field of study is not as narrow as you state. Even if his claimed field is narrowly focused on authorship, WP:N requires that the subject be notable within that field of study, as demonstrated through reliable independent sources. Even within that redefined field, Waugaman's publications are not widely cited outside of his own subsequent publications. Most of his Shakespeare-related publications are in journals or through publishing houses with an explicit POV on Shakespeare authorship. Bomagosh (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not notable for his medical work. As a minor WP:FRINGE Shakespeare scholar we need mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on his work and how it differs from the mainstream. The Times Higher Education is such a source and, if kept, should be more prominently incorporated into the article text. But as a source for notability I think that article plus the Telegraph article on the same events fail WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Dr. Eppstein. Since you are noted computer scientist, I wonder what algorithm you followed to reach the conclusion that Professor Waugaman is not notable for his medial work. I am anxious to know. As I'm sure you'll agree, such a global assessment should be based on thorough research before announcing a conclusion. Dr. Waugaman seems notable to me for many reasons, including both his extensive publication record in psychoanalysis and psychology as well as for the work that has kept Mr. Reedy busy deleting links to for several years now. So, how did you reach that opinion and how strongly do you wish to defend it? You seem like a really decent guy but I'm not very satisfied by your rationale. --BenJonson (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I skipped over this quickly because I thought it was clear-cut and that the more interesting debate was whether he was notable for his literary work. But a pretty big clue is given by the citation counts in his Google scholar profile. Medical professionals whose medical research makes them notable typically have multiple publications with over 100 citations each. Stars of the field might be another order of magnitude more than that. Waugaman's top citation count is 13, and three out of the top four publications that he lists are literary analysis rather than medical case studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR: “The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline ... as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ... The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly-cited academic work.” Web of Science records 15 articles by R[ichard M] Waugaman on Shakespeare, de Vere, or authorship, with 10 citations. But only 4 of these citations are by scholars other than Waugaman himself. The other 6 are self-citations, and 9 of these papers have never been cited at all. His two Kindle books are self-published by his own Oxfreudian vanity press. His so-called title, “Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts at Georgetown University” is self-assumed. The only requirement for this informal role is a willingness to be contacted: ^[6] Quidlibet (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Quidlibet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~I've added quite a number of Dr. Waugaman's other articles to the list of works cited. --BenJonson (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)~~ Struck comments by topic-banned editor. See the abovementioned link to the topic ban and User talk:BenJonson#Mentioned. Kraxler (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Gutter Guard information from Consumer Reports". Consumer Reports. Consumer Reports.
^ "Gutter Guards". About.com. About.com.
^ "How to Buy Gutter Guards & Leaf Catchers". HomeTips.com. HomeTips.
^ http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/waugamar/
^ https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/shakespeare-scholar-disputes-decision-reversal-by-journal/2015679.article
^ https://uis.georgetown.edu/web-services/explore-documentation/faculty-information-explore/include-your-profile-in-the-faculty-experts-guide.

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:SCHOLAR: as per nom. —Sicinius —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 14 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 and redirect to Gary Null. Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf War Syndrome: Killing Our Own[edit]

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

Another Null-film that fails WP:NFILM. Not one of the many citations on this article constitute significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Yes, one does find several instances where the film is being hosted on some sort of documentary screening portal, brief mentions that the film has been shown or awarded at a minor festival, production listings, passing mentions at Gulf War Syndrome-related sites, but not a single case of an independent, significant review or article or discussion in a non-affiliated book or journal, that I can see, and as required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Gary Null. Gary may (or may not) be a notable, but this film fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM and WP:NFRINGE. I did put a prod-template on this article, but it was removed by the original author with a somewhat unconventional explanation as to why... WegianWarrior (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to WegianWarrior. Simple, the tag was unwarranted. Also on the suggestion of another member about something a little different, I have been having a look at your sometimes low-usage account, I've been measuring times of activity and it seems your usage increases when there are certain controversial articles that involve exposing GMO foods etc, or articles about activists challenging Big Pharma. It seems that you have been concentrating on certain articles to delete. Of course you're allowed to pick and choose. Just as long as that's all you're doing .... ~wink~ Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you practice the well known sport of jumping to conclusions about others.. or as we say in Norway; På seg selv kjenner man andre. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Gary Null. Same reasons as above (primarily WP:NFILM), but additionally WP:FRINGE due to content. I suspect that there will be several more of User:Mr Bill Truth's contributions finding their way to AfD in the near future if he continues this pattern of churning out WP:FRINGE articles that fail notability guidelines, although at some point it may be better to just bring him to somewhere like ANI due to his extended pattern of WP:SOAP edits. Garzfoth (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, someone, I think it may have been Mastcell himself, pointed to #14 in his WP:CGTW and even though I've been here a while this list was like a revelation, to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw that over at WP:FTN (posted by User:Alexbrn). The list is pretty hilarious, I also liked the Optimist's Guide linked in there. WP:RANDY is pretty good too (as well as some of the articles under "See Also" on that page). We're probably getting a bit off-topic for an AfD nomination though. Garzfoth (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's where it was, yes. Well, I seriously think "truth" should be one of the username elements prohibited at WP:IU. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. Anything salvageable should be merged to Gary Null. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is notable, also has a massive grass-roots following. Go and look at the Gulf War vets. This film has so far picked up at least 4 awards at at least 3 festivals
Action on Film International Film Festival, USA
Best Documentary Political - [33]
Twin Rivers Multimedia Film Festival 2013
3rd place World premier
Documentary Film and Commercial Film Winner [34]
WorldFest-Houston
Platinum Remi Award [35] Mr Bill Truth (talk) 09:21, 10 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. Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trivial nature of the awards claimed as justification for inclusion speaks volumes. As does the fact that their articles were themselves created by the same editor who wrote this article. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. One of the bricks in the WP:Walled garden promoting Null and his "work". ukexpat (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if some of the other films are notable,which is very dubious, this one certainly is not. Trying to write articles about all the works of a person, regardless of their importance, is usually a sign of promotionalism. (works of truly famous people are another matter, but for those merely notable, it shows the lack of perspective which is common to COI) DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ukexpat and others above; looks like an agenda at work. Miniapolis 01:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ukexpat and others above; no evidence of independent RSs.Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Social Development and Self-Help Perspective[edit]

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

My searches (News, Books, browser, Scholar, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found no good results to suggest possible improvement and the German article also provides no help. The article isn't detailed and more clear about this organization and maybe it's the language and country barriers but I found nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:28, 25 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) 23:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources, no claim to notability, just another organization Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Article is unsourced, and neither a google news search or a websearch, returned any results to show the notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Zentrum für soziale Entwicklung und Selbsthilfe Perspektive" and Центр "Перспектива" aren't pulling up reliable sources either. This article may require print sources to pass notability requirements. --Djembayz (talk) 17:43, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index64[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I can't find any reliable secondary sources about it on the web, in GBooks or on GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 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 delete and redirect to Qpids. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabb Drilon[edit]

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

I can't find reliable sources in English indicating that this person is notable, or even to back up any of the statements made in the article. If there are such sources in Tagalog, maybe the article can be saved. agtx 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to suggest good independent notability and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qpids.--RioHondo (talk) 03:51, 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 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, I know redirecting is often prefferred but I'd imagine he's not even remembered for being in Qpids nor any other programme for that matter so personally think redirecting is pointless in this case, Obvs fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Redirect not necessary but I wouldn't mind, given there are 5-15 daily visitors to this article. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:09, 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. Squeaks by on GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew East[edit]

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

Not notable. Is on the KC Chiefs roster but he is yet to play. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is some extra sources on the talk page but only this local piece looks good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist to establish notability per WP:BASIC. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Although I agree that this article doesn't meet WP:NGRIDIRON, the sources that exist are enough to establish notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Basic primer regarding establishing notability under the general notability guidelines: WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The Vanderbilt athletics department and Senior Bowl websites are not independent sources; they're entities too closely related to the subject and have a vested interest in promoting content related to the subject. Recruiting and NFL Draft websites, such as the CBS Sports profile, are generally treated as not significant coverage. Sports blogs and fan-site such as "Anchor of Gold" (really SBNation.com) are generally treated as not reliable sources because their writers are not professional and their content is not subject to professional editor review and control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 1, 4, and 6 above are primary sources (either the university he played for or a bowl game he played in). 5 is routine coverage on a draft website, given to all those eligible for the draft. 2 and 3 are on a blog specific to the university he played for, which is only a local source. With 2 and 3 really the only non-routine coverage in a secondary source, two local sources is not enough to pass WP:GNG for a college athlete. Keep in mind local sources cover college athletes largely due to the notability of the team, not necessarily the notability of the individual. A decent athlete at a Division III school might have a few local pieces on him/her, but that certainly wouldn't be because they're notable. ~ Rob^Talk 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Search again, there are many sources. His notability is increasing by the day in its own right. Andrew Eckart (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Eckart: Can you provide links to some that you see as significant? I'm seeing plenty of minor coverage related to the draft or small mentions, but nothing particularly substantial. I don't doubt that he will eventually be notable, but we shouldn't predict this, as per WP:CRYSTAL. ~ Rob^Talk 00:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Long snappers don't typically get a lot of press, but this guy gets a fair bit, though it seems to be in large part because of his looks (SI.com picked him as one of the 10 "hottest" college football players) and his famous fiance (Olympic gymnast Shawn Johnson). Examples include: Us magazine, Sports Illustrated, The Tennessean, The City Paper, Kansas City Star, and Vanderbilt Hustler. Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessean is definitely a reliable secondary source, and pushes me to a weaker delete. I still don't think the combined reliable sources are enough to pass GNG yet, but it's definitely closer. The Vanderbilt Hustler is a student newspaper for the university he plays for, so more-or-less a primary source. The engagement stuff is not really indicative of notability, as all of the articles I've seen regarding it have focused on Johnson (inherited notability). And while I agree with his placement on the SI list, I think it goes without saying that it has no bearing on notability. Just to articulate my specific concerns more, I'm seeing very limited regional coverage and no national coverage whatsoever. I don't majorly factor local coverage into notability of college athletes because such coverage generally stems from the notability of the team, not the notability of the player. ~ Rob^Talk 05:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is coverage, and notability can be acquired through many paths. One of those can be through a significant amount of press for getting engaged at Wrigley Field. People get engaged at Wrigley Field many times a year, but this one got a lot of press. Couple that with the other coverage and I'm looking at a clear pass of the general notability guideline. Engagement to someone else can indeed be a path to notability. For example, Diana, Princess of Wales and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are two (albeit more "extreme") examples where notability came from who they got engaged to (and eventually married).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Paulmcdonald said, GNG doesn't discriminate about the type of coverage. He's had coverage in People, IndyStar, NBC's Today, Us, and many others regarding his engagement - which wouldn't be news unless they were notable; The Kansas City Star, plus many articles about his signing and his progress during training camp. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CliqIt[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails the primary inclusion criteria. No significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to establish its notability. The sources in the article are unreliable as they are nothing but a self-promotional website that anyone can add content to promote themselves. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promoting a non-notable site, no coverage of the site anywhere in independent sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 03:38, 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 11:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Ettner[edit]

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

Delete (from nominator). No evidence of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. "Energy psychology"? Really? The only thing I can find which comes close to meeting notability is publishing books. However, I can find no evidence of any of the books getting any kinds of review/notice in any big place. Just blogs. Barcaboy2 (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough and reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per above, non-notable.— James Cantor (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fun School#Fun School 6. This is clearly not garnering any additional comments, so I'll close it with consensus to redirect Fun School 6 to Fun School#Fun School 6, but I don't find consensus (yet) to redirect all games to the series articles, nor all games + series to the developper Europress. Czar and Thibbs can keep discussing the possibility of merging to the series outside of this AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fun School 6[edit]

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

Cant find anythig that establishes notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all Fun School articles to Europress, the developer. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the series article is always preferred to deletion. Redirection is more useful than deletion. As it stands, all of the Fun School games appear to lack significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) FS6 had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. Probably could have just redirected the lot to the dev boldly with little fanfare. Might just want to withdraw the nom and do that, @TheLongTone. Please ((ping)) me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you'll find that the first four Fun School articles and Fun School Special have a number of reliable sources from magazines and related manuals. The latter two on the other hand has archived sources linking to their homepages. Some time ago, the main Fun School article was a mess with no sources at all. My idea is that all groups of games have their respective articles. It would be nice that Fun School 1 till 4 and Specials could be have French sources related to the Amstrad CPC versions. If the idea of individual articles for each game doesn't work, I propose a complete merge for the articles or partial merges for two articles: Fun School 1 till 4 and Fun School 5 till 7 and Fun Special as a standalone article. What the articles could really do with are sources indicating any awards won and number of copies sold (so far Fun School 2 has that kind of source). In the meantime, I'll see what magazine coverage I can dig up for this particular article. Deltasim (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find—nope, didn't find. Let's see those sources. Unless there are several magazine reviews of each individual game, there is not enough reliable material with which to write an article, and each should be redirected to a list. Worldcat listings and primary source links to dev's website do not count towards significant external coverage. – czar 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative redirect of Fun School 6 to Fun School if Fun School can be improved (or to Europress per Czar). As Czar points out, only significant coverage in reliable third party sources can be used to demonstrate notability. So even though manuals and other self-published sources may be sufficiently reliable to cite in an article they still don't demonstrate that it meets the basic notability threshold. The existence of old paper-copy sources for the other Fun School games is the reason my !vote is tentative. If additional sourcing can be located sufficient to demonstrate notability then I'd change to "keep".

In the same vein, I disagree that all Fun School titles should be redirected. Appropriate WP:VG/RS-vetted RSes seem to exist for several of the prior titles (e.g. Amstrad Action, Your Sinclair, and Crash for Fun School 4; Amstrad Action and Your Sinclair for Fun School 2), and other sources may also plausibly qualify as reliable pending a discussion at WT:VG/RS (e.g. ST Format cited in Fun School 2 and Amiga Format cited in Fun School Specials are sister-publications to the RS-approved PC Format; CU Amiga cited in Fun School Specials is a sister-publication to the RS-approved Sinclair User). But with that said, it's clear that all of the articles need more work. WP:VG/GL suggests that video game articles have a minimum set of elements including coverage of development/history and reception. As they stand now the articles are more focused on the details of the games (lists of game elements) than on the circumstances surrounding the games (development history, reception, educational significance, etc.) and they may fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I was invited by Deltasim to comment here. -Thibbs (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Thibbs, video game trivia#2 says that similar articles should be merged unless there are sufficient sources for splitting it out. I don't think anyone would object if someone built up a "Fun School 4" section to the point where it needed to be split out, but is it realistically in the cards right now? – czar 19:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find VGSCOPE to be persuasive but not controlling in this case. Or at least not to the extent that I'd feel comfortable casting a group !vote within a AfD on a specific member of the series. In my view a good AfD-multi request should name the best article as the primary example rather than one of the least developed. But again, VGSCOPE is persuasive and I would personally have no problem with a more complete merge without prejudice regarding future splits. It's worth considering that split out material can and should re-use the RSes presented in the parent article and that in the meanwhile (in the time it takes a section to reach the point of splitting) a single article citing all appropriate RS-es would be much more stable and AfD-resistant. I could go either way at this point. Further development of the substance of the articles will ultimately be the deciding factor. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 11:05, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Olympiad[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is a notable contest. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most prestigious Computer Science journals, Communications of the ACM, just covered this event in some depth. Djonesuk (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than sufficient coverage for one article. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination oer comments above. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 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) Esquivalience ^t 01:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lawrence (writer)[edit]

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

I am unsure whether the page should be deleted, and I would like to see it discussed. It seems to me to lack evidence of the subject's notability:

The first citation (of the subject's publisher's web site) does not mention him.
The second is to his own web site.
The third, to a reputable independent source, is a one-line description of one of his books.
The fourth is behind a paywall.

I have tried looking for better sources. The best I can find is http://youngdracula.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Dracula:_AND_Young_Monsters, which does assert his notability, but I don't know how Wikipedia regards other Wiki sites. Maproom (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other wiki's are not normally counted as reliable sources but may be used to locate them. See; WP:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F. wintonian ^talk 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took me a while, but I found some sources. For some reason these didn't want to come up under his name, which was frustrating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide us with these new sources so we can a, assess them ouselves; b, include them in the article if appropriate? wintonian ^talk 17:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are the reviews in the article. Book reviews have always been acceptable as proof of notability for authors per WP:NAUTHOR and media outlets like the School Library Journal (around since 1954), Horn Book Guide (1924), and Booklist (the last is the official publication of the American Library Association) are considered to be reliable. All three (especially the Horn Book Guide) are considered to be extremely well thought of and very influential in the book world. On top of that we also have reviews from peer-reviewed academic journals like School Librarian and reviews from MuggleNet, which started out as a fan website but has since turned into a respected website that is considered to be a reliable source. (IE, they don't accept reviews from just anyone and the site does have an editorial process.) Kliatt is also considered to be a reliable source, as when they were still circulating (the magazine has since stopped publication) they were fairly well thought of. Now the thing about authors is that you don't have to show that one specific book is notable - you can establish notability for an author by showing how their work has received coverage (ie, reviews) over a larger period of time. This is far easier to do with an author's comprehensive work than it is with individual books or series, which is the case here - although I will note that there are enough reviews to where I could justify someone creating a series page for either the Jiggy McCue or the Withern Rise series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, and with a heavy heart, but from my investigations I just don't see how it comes close to meeting the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. To C&P what I have said on talk elsewhere:

I can't find anything via Google that comes close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. However it is claimed in the article that his "Young Dracula" work was the inspiration for a BBC series of the same name, he claimes this in his website and it is mention on his Amazon bio [5], which I assume he either wrote or provided the info for? WP:AUTHOR says in point 3; ["]The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews["] Either way it is not a feature length film and 'inspiration for' is somewhat remote I feel from the work being turned into an audio/ visual production, besides I'm struggling to find anything to back the claim. Also he has written quite a few book over the last 20 years and with the article itself being 10 years old...
— User:wintonian

The only mention I could find in the media was an article in the local rag about the planned closure of the local library in which he is interviewed as part of the campaign to save it, sadly there are many such campaigns currently up and down the country making this hardly unusual.wintonian ^talk 17:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I'm please we have cleared this one up positively. Thanks ought to go to Tokyogirl79 for uncovering what seems to be beyond my ability too. --wintonian ^talk 20:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in RS have now been added to page, and these reviews carry this author past WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "RS", please? Maproom (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RS meeans reliable sources Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you. I could also question "reviews": many of the so-called "reviews" now cited in the article are one-sentence plot summaries. But I see there are now also some actual reviews, so I shall be voting to keep. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:AUTHOR ie. "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", His works are held by hundreds of libraries worldwide reflecting their "well-knowness"(?) eg. A Crack in the Line is held by over 900 libraries[36], The Killer Underpants is held by over 500 libraries[37]. They have been the subject of numerous independent reliable reviews which is now reflected in the article, thanks to Tokyogirl79 Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator. I am pleased to see there is now compelling evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 14:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazella Moore[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Her husband being fired for marrying her doesn't cut it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps did not turn up much, except for the incident in which her husband was fired from a job after it came out his wife was a porn star, which looks like a WP:BLP1E.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per Tomwsulcer. BLP1E/BIO1E principles are not relaxed for otherwise nn porn performers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:59, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Reagan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO - and interview and some fluffa round appearing in a mainstream ad do not a BLP make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE again. The assertion of notability needs support from the facts. Lots of award nominations plus low grade fluff do not add up to notability per WP:PORNBIO • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 nominations to awards, for me, are notable. Common sense over silly regulations, see also Wikipedia:Common sense. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porn award nominations, especially AVN with 15 nominees per category, are given out prolifically. It is something for everyone. Porn nominations were removed from the notability guideline for just this reason. Common sense is not requirement to treat fluff as a contributing factor for notability. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and 17 of interwiki - on 17 Wikipedias there is an article of Faye Reagan and this is good, but on en.Wikipedia, the article is removed - this is evidence that the new changes in PORNBIO are too radical and idiotically. You don't realize what you're doing. That's going too far. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many awards are given out prolifically, for example: in MTV Movie Awards there are categories of "Best Kiss" or "Best Dance Sequence", so. It is subjective rating, for inclusionists, many award nominations is notable, for deletionists - not. Besides, I appreciate all achievements: number of films, is well known or not, number of nominations to awards, number of interwiki, other; later I am making a choice: keep or delete or do not vote (no opinion). If I think that person is worthy of attention, I vote for keep, simply. Faye Reagan, for me, are notable. There is only one argument for delete - fails new version of PORNBIO, but it is not enough. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD "votes" based on arguments completely contrary to project policy & guidelines are likely to be ignored when the closing admin determines consensus. As long as you are aware of the fact that this, and many other, AfDs are treated as if you never posted here at all, then keep on truckin' I guess. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you wrong. Nothing will be ignored. Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrong. I appreciate all achievements: number of films, is well known or not, number of nominations to awards, number of interwiki, other; these are arguments, later I am making a choice: keep or delete or do not vote (no opinion). If I think that person is worthy of attention, I vote for keep, simply. Faye Reagan, for me, are notable: well known, 3,370,000 results in Google, 254 films, 15 nominations to awards, 17 of interwiki. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, I am just opining that votes that are so off-the-mark and contrary to project guideline & policy alike will likely not be counted at all. AfDs are not votes, you know, right? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO guideline states in the second paragraph, the guideline reflects the consensus of editors. Occasional exceptions need good reasons. Criteria long rejected by the community like Google hits and number of films do not constitute good reasons to buck the working consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Google hits and number of films not a direct reason for leaving, but these are arguments. If person has a (for example) million hits, this shows that it is popular. Large number of films (for example 200) shows that it is not a person with half a year experience and is worth attention. These only arguments, two of several. The rest of the argument is over. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If person has a (for example) million hits, this shows that it is popular..., yes but being popular is not the same as bein notable for this project. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As lovely as she is unfortunately looks can't count towards notability, Sadly and regrettably fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the more stringent WP:PORNBIO. The general notability guide is of course beyond reach here, as no reliable sources cover the subject. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: the vapid "vote" above should be discarded per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, please stop trolling, someone may have a different view/opinion than you, please respect other users' votes. If the voice is not clear to you, please ask the user to expand. Hillary Scott`love, I presented the arguments above, whether you agree with them? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry If I'm a bit dense here but how is Tarc trolling ? ..... It's a known fact you can't just put "It's notable" and if you do it'll be disregarded here, In reality both of your !votes mean jack shit here and is doing nothing but wasting both your times!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the voice by other user is not clear to you, please ask the user to expand, without text of "Closing admin". Someone may have a different view/opinion than you, the opposition has no right to judge votes by other users. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hillary Scott`love:, I presented the arguments above, whether you agree with them or you have other arguments? Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't have to ask users to expand ... They should read WP:AFD and all that before !voting/participating here, And with the greatest of respect you've been asked countless times to expand and you still never do, If someone makes a WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote they deserve telling and disregarding. –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have faith that the admins closing these discussion are more than competent enough to judge the merits of every editor's weigh-in here, but it doesn't hurt to call attention to the ones that are most egregiously contrary to project norms, such as this one. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 00:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common sense" should tell you that claiming that the "occasional exception" holds in virtually every disputed case, and being resoundingly rejected the great majority of the time, serves only to convince uninvolved editors that your opinion is not to be taken seriously. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Kenyan cricketers (and other similar categories), and hundreds of articles this type - Emmanuel Bundi (stub, not known person in the world, 1000 hits in Google, 0 interwiki, cricketer - he is in Wikipedia because has played in one One Day International match. And Faye Reagan: well known (media person), 3,370,000 results in Google, 254 films, 15 nominations to awards, 17 of interwiki (on 17 Wikipedias there is an article of Faye Reagan)...and you blindly look only at (underdeveloped and no reasonable) pornobio. I proved and showed the ~~folly~~ of the year, congratulations. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 10:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're falling back on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments now? Tarc (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. I not vote because other articles.... I proved and showed your the a complete lack of common sense, nothing more. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're pointing out other subjects, e.g. Kenyan cricketers, and using the existence of those articles to justify the retention of this one. That is the the epitome of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the perfectly sound analysis presented by the nominator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing PORNBIO, GNG, and WP:NMODEL and per my comments above. Lots of low quality citations without reliable source coverage don't add up to notability. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm glad when policy overcomes fandom. Disregarding sexist comments above, she clearly fails PORNBIO and GNG. No extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources is available; none. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:52, 14 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 and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Perez[edit]

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO (nominations are now excluded) Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pethouse Pet, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom- Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Penthouse Pets are not inherently notable. Fails PORNBIO with only award nominations. Also fails GNG. Most coverage is the usual mix of press releases and announcements. The only plausibly independent significant coverage is an Adult Video News story cited in the article. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Penthouse pets are not inherently notable, fails all notability guides otherwise. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Pethouse" Pets are not generally notable; fewer than half have articles, and the percentage continues to decline as BLP standards are more consistently enforced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. My sweeps did not find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - After doing a little bit of research on the subject under discussion here, it does not appear that there is enough notability at this time for a stand-alone article. Guy1890 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Past practice in similar discussions has been to delete and allow, but not require, creation of a redirect. In the absence of independent, reliable sourcing, I'm not sure it's prudent to create a redirect for a common name like this. A cursory GNews search turns up multiple examples of coverage of an athlete also named Renee Perez and a noteworthy academic named Domino Renee Perez, for example. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:57, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Oral Annie[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO (scene award doesn't count) and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of award, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The award win was scene-related, which no longer counts for notability per WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A porn Golden Oldie, but unfortunately does not meet the project's notability threshold. Scene awards are expressly barred in the wording of WP:PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced porn biography. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG lacking significant coverage by reliable sources. My searches got passing mentions in article mostly about the films she appeared in. Golden Age star but still not notable. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notable porn stars from this period typically show a substantial level of durable coverage; for this performer, it's bare;y marginal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Award does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commander (Total Annihilation)[edit]

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

This article is little more than a game guide and is full of personal opinions. It cites no sources whatsoever, and I can find nothing substantial in reliable secondary sources. There is nothing worthwhile to merge, as this unit is already covered in sufficient detail at Total Annihilation. Reyk _YO! 08:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs on a fan website for the game, not an encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a game guide. No history, notability or content other relevant other than in-game.Shinerite (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest improvement and although there are linking articles, I'm not seeing much hope for this. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 14 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. A begrudging close as "no consensus" because it is the only outcome that can be applied to the overall discussion: Serge and Czar made the most pertinent points in their rationales to redirect, but as a closer it would be irresponsible to discount the volume of opposition. From my perspective, the few well-backed reasons to redirect IMO balance out the numerous relatively poorer (though not necessarily incorrect) rationales to keep.

This closure is specifically without prejudice against individual renoms, especially for the Xbox & Playstation & PSP/PSVita articles (since the Wii/WiiU ones were by far the most discussed here), if you still believe the articles should be deleted/redirected after the removal of the changelogs. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox One system software et al[edit]

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

Czar (talk · contribs) asserts per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_99#Category:Game_console_operating_systems that articles describing video game console operating systems must be removed as a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:GAMECRUFT, and unnecessary duplication of content already contained in parent articles.

However, I assert that this requires additional discussion as it is a significant change that was backed by a single editor in a two-year-old discussion. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not simply state that the articles or tables are “useful.” Wikipedia doesn’t care if you think they’re useful. Instead, explain how they could be useful to readers of a general encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucratic metadiscussion – czar 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is the wrong venue. AfD is only for arguments of deletion (else they are kept as SK#1) and no one is actually arguing to delete the pages. – czar 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] This is a procedural nomination. Additionally, I did present an argument for deletion; the discussion and violated policies. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] If you're actually proposing that these pages be wiped from WP, then all right – czar 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Withdrawn as a blatant violation of the principles of AFD and WP:SK#1. I hereby assert support for the merging of game console system software pages per assumed consensus. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] WAAAAAIT! ViperSnake151, Czar - The wording in SK #1 has changed. It now allows for proposing redirects (and by association, merges I assume). See the this and the current wording. I didn't learn this until rather recently myself... Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Funny story, I'm actually in that discussion but didn't see how it ended. Sorry about that, VS. Oh well, here we go – czar 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Aye sir. Struck that out. Feel free to revert my re-reversions. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bureaucratic metadiscussion – czar 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is the wrong venue. AfD is only for arguments of deletion (else they are kept as SK#1) and no one is actually arguing to delete the pages. – czar 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a procedural nomination. Additionally, I did present an argument for deletion; the discussion and violated policies. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  If you're actually proposing that these pages be wiped from WP, then all right – czar 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Withdrawn as a blatant violation of the principles of AFD and WP:SK#1. I hereby assert support for the merging of game console system software pages per assumed consensus. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  WAAAAAIT! ViperSnake151, Czar - The wording in SK #1 has changed. It now allows for proposing redirects (and by association, merges I assume). See the this and the current wording. I didn't learn this until rather recently myself... Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Funny story, I'm actually in that discussion but didn't see how it ended. Sorry about that, VS. Oh well, here we go – czar 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Aye sir. Struck that out. Feel free to revert my re-reversions. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to their respective console's sections on software (which is to say restore the redirect). Both What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCHANGELOG#4, policy) and the WPVG guidelines (WP:VGSCOPE#9, guideline) both say explicitly that we do not host changelogs as an encyclopedia. If the respective console articles began to bulge in their software sections and saw a need to spill out summary style into their own articles, then no problem, but that's not what's happening here. These are just really big tables of every single, minute change to software, which meets the policy and guidelines of what we do not host to the letter. Anything that needs to be said about the system software can be said in the parent articles unless reliable sources show that the software has something significant that makes it more than just a part of the product. – czar 17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So why are we allowed to have Android version history and iOS version history? VGSCOPE does not say game hardware, it says the version history of a game (although I just amended that guideline right now, because the whole passage applies to game and game-related topics). But that seems to be in the spirit of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. However, the WP:NOTCHANGELOG really says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." So it's not a full-on ban on changelogs. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Other stuff exists. The spirit of NOTCHANGELOG is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a difference between a change log (0.01 version update minutiae) and a synthetic history of version changes based in secondary sources. Android/iOS is famous as software while Xbox's software is secondary. There is more merit (and reliable sources!) about the differences between Firefox 3 and 4 than the differences between Xbox OS X and Y. That's fine. But this is not a discussion about Software version history but about specific articles—I see no case in which it is worth retaining the primary source version histories of these articles nominated, and once those are removed, there's nothing left to keep, so we're left to merge. The articles on the history of iOS/Android/individual web browsers are a different animal, an animal that still should have its primary source change logs gutted but at least has the potential of being rewritten as a synthetic history between major features and versions. The video game console software doesn't need a separate article for that and can be written summary style. I'll add that my suspicion is that these lists are the equivalent of WP:Dateline—it's easier to maintain an article where you just dump version history than it is to write the useful, synthetic history that should be in its place. – czar 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all of them - per WP:NOT. It's not encyclopedic to list every system update that occurs, and the operating system info is better shown as a (shorter) section in its respective parent article. (I would have challenged these articles sooner, but the pure volume of these sorts of articles made me think they were acceptable. If you actually look into policy though, it is not.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on; shouldn't each of these be discussed separately? Wii system software is more than just a changelog; it also has a good bit of material about the nature of the software that is not found in the parent articles. —SamB (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's all unsourced and there's nothing to merge. If you want to merge other parts, go ahead. – czar 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, being unsourced now is not listed as a WP:DEL-REASON; there'd have to be a thorough attempt to find reliable sources first. —SamB (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and egg. If the article topic had enough sources, it would split out summary style from its parent article. If someone wants to find or debate sources and build it out, it can be done from the Wii article's section on software. – czar 19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The policy is NOT to cut off limbs and see if they grow back. Also, what section on software? And, has something significant changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii System Software? —SamB (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP's notability standards have changed significantly in the last eight years. – czar 22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now I am going to change related articles to Afd and remove all changelog part to see how they will fit. --Cartakes (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I have removed the changelog part in articles such as Nintendo 3DS system software, Wii U system software and Wii system software. I do think they perfectly fit in Wikipedia even without the changelog part. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is now invalid for these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —SamB (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the changelog is notable enough to be in the page? I really found it helpful for many years. ~~Can you elaborate upon your point? Does the changelog detract from the rest of the page?~~ Never mind. I just re-read the "no changelog" guideline. Sorry - my mistake. --BenM64 (talk)

Keep after deleting the changelog: Obviously, the nominator's argument for the deletion of these article is WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:GAMECRUFT. It is better to remove the changelog part than simply deleting all these articles. Both of these reasons are now invalid for these articles since changelog no longer exists. --Cartakes (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. I suppose the changelog took up more of the page than the main summary, WP:NOTCHANGELOG or not. --BenM64 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's left after removing the changelog info though? And is that info covered by 3rd party sources? And if there's anything left, would it be better as a section in the parent subjects article? Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wii U system software for example. There are A LOT of contents and 3rd party sources provided. And obviously it does not fit in a section in the parent subjects article as well. --Cartakes (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the content (Miiverse, Wii Mode,etc) is, and/or should be, covered at the main Wii U article or their own articles... Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these contents in fact don't have their own articles (remember? the nominator was even trying to delete articles such as LiveArea). The Wii U article only has some very brief mentioning of features such as Wii mode for example, compared with the article Wii U system software, which contains much more detailed information regarding these features, which don't really fit in Wii U article either. The parent articles are not supposed to be detailed collections of every information about them.--Cartakes (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes the "system software" page a coatrack for non-notable software features and change logs. Serge has it exactly right—there's nothing left to substantiate a fork for "system software" after removing the change logs. – czar 22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I see the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles? These information are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. Compared with for example Konqueror vs KHTML, the latter containing more technical info regarding Konqueror. --Cartakes (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of these are discussed somewhere else though. Miiverse, Nintendo eShop, Nintendo TVii etc. The article is unnecessary and redundant. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to mention that the "system software" page is for discussing the software features etc of the parent articles themselves, not an article about individual features. You may in fact consider the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles, which are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. --Cartakes (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Main articles" (usually called "parent/child articles", and usually based on summary style) require proof of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) A list of vetted video game sources is available here. From a cursory search, no one is discussing "Wii system software" as independent from the Wii itself. – czar 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Wii U system software yet? It contains lots of independent sources already. For demonstration purpose you can see what I mean as a "Main article" here. No, it is not mean to be independent from the Wii U itself, but as a child article for the Wii U#Software section. The Wii U#Software section contains summary style info, while the child article contains more detailed info. --Cartakes (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, the articles were deleted, nothing of encyclopedic value would be lost; the "changelog stuff" doesn't belong, and the rest of it is covered at other articles. (The parent article, the spinoff articles for their online services, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed all the "changelog stuff" in all these articles yesterday, so the "changelog" issue basically no longer exists. As for the rest, a question for you: should the article Features new to Windows 8 be deleted too when the section Windows 8#New and changed features already exists? Obviously the article Features new to Windows 8 covers more detailed info than the section Windows 8#New and changed features, similar to the fact that the article Wii U system software covers more detailed info than the section Wii U#Software. --Cartakes (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think your example is also excessive and should just have the main points in the parent article. There's too much excessive detail - if you want that much detail, you may as well go read the software manual. Sergecross73 msg me 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where's all the changelog stuff now? I thought it was interesting to have all that stuff in one place...is it being archived somewhere? Do the official websites have changelogs that are that complete and detailed? 91.5.30.174 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — 91.5.30.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a lot that could be left over if the article was redone. As far as I could see, Wikipedia contains no information on the Kinect's software. This page would be an appropriate location for such information. Software-based DRM could be discussed here. Windows 10 for Xbox One could be discussed here. However, currently the article is just a hyper-detailed changelog with a brief blurb at the top. As it stands, if the changelog is removed, there's absolutely nothing that couldn't be merged into the Xbox One article in two sentences. Eggbake (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as is I don't think it's cruft to list these previous versions, there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia to list previous versions and what changes from one version to the next. Seems a little overambitious to me to wipe these from the wiki. Essentially, WP:BROKE. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should add that I'm also not too fond of having an AfD over a three comment thread from two years ago where no consensus was established. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  The discussion from 2013 never had any bearing in this discussion and no one ever claimed that it did. Plenty of articles exist that haven't been fixed—it doesn't mean we stop following sitewide policy when attempting to fix them. – czar 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  No, but we can ignore it on a case by case basis if it improves the wiki, and I think these improve the wiki. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]
  I’m not sure if we should be replying here, above the thing that says “Please add new comments below this notice.” But @TrueCRaysball: I disagree with the notion that it improves the encyclopedia. If a wiki sought to be a database of every software update to any piece of software it treated, no matter how trivial that update might be, then these would improve that wiki. Or if a wiki sought to preserve all historical information about the system that uses the software, these would improve that wiki. But Wikipedia is not that wiki. Information that improves a resource designed for hobbyists, or pro gamers, or stamp collectors, or model train enthusiasts, does not necessarily improve an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is designed to be a general encyclopedia, not a specialized resource. Cluttering up the article with every update ever released just buries the notable/important updates, which do not get the WP:WEIGHT they are due. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  The link you gave says "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias", so specialized knowledge is within our scope. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, it has no limits in depth of coverage. Diego (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found all of these articles to be helpful over the past years. And if they got removed, then that would be simply inconsistent as we do keep changelogs for platforms like Android and iOS. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then, the reason I've found these articles to be useful is that there are no other places that keep track of it, not even the companies that design these softwares. I can't point to any source that has a nice, solid, objective and trust worthy overview of what has been done and has yet to come for any of the for deletion proposed artikel's operating systems. I only know that Sony is keeping track of this but since their Generation 8 website, the information is hard to find and even prior to that, it was never that objective or just flat uninformative, where Wikipedia always did provide some information on what actualy changed (for example, Sony's "The software should now work even more reliable" (or something like that), is on Wikipedia replaced with the issues that got fixed). There is, right now, no place to track these updates better then on Wikipedia. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not put the system software history table on a new category for the corresponding console? It can even things out... 202.160.36.113 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 01:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WITH changelogs as I have found these articles more accurate and in-depth than the official listings, and in some of the cases where there only are delta changelogs available on the system software websites while on Wikipedia there are full changelogs of every version. These articles are better than official sources and, most often, there is no other source that compares to Wikipedia in these cases. Haseo9999 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And how do you reconcile this stance with WP:NOTCHANGELOG? That flies directly against what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, Your 10 crushing tons of WP:BRICKS has been felt heavily. Second, I encourage you to look at Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors as that may help you understand how better to word your replies. Third, WP:IAR. Fourth, If it ain't WP:BROKE, don't fix it. Fifth, the discussion is over 2 years old. Sixth, IP 84.195.214.118 is right. If broke doesn't work. Maybe there could be a better way of doing the change logs. Maybe we could get together some users who have an interest in these articles to go over the change logs update by update and remove cruft or condense them down to the essential features. We're not doing an article regarding the History of Linux to the extent where every revision in the kernel's git repository is recorded. That's far overkill. History of iOS is similar, but Apple does not provide a change log to the extent that A History of Linux would be like if we used the kernel's git log. History of iOS, however, strikes a balance between too much and too little info. I feel that these "Articles for Deletion" are as notable as History for iOS is and, as such, require the same degree of support. Haseo9999 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh, what? All I did was ask your to explain such a stance, and I did so pretty clearly and succinctly. I'd do the same if someone said "Keep, along with all the WP:CRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, and unsourced material!" It's difficult to understand a stance like that, knowing Wikipedia policies. Also, citing WP:BROKE doesn't make sense because it is in fact "broke" - it doesn't follow policy, and the age of the discussion is irrelevant because we're having new discussions on it right here. We're not going to make a decision based on the 2yr old discussion, we'll make a call on what's being discussed here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It’s unfortunate that no better resource was available; perhaps these changelogs should be copied to a wiki devoted to video game consoles. (Incidentally, I can’t help wondering what they were based on [OR?] if they were better than all available sources.) But merely being WP:USEFUL to a specialized audience is not a criterion for being included in a general encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - These changelogs where based on multiple sources (like any Wikipedia article should be) and rewritten to be objective. that's why they are better then any available and official source. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - We might not be tracking the history of Linux, but there are plenty of other subjects we do track. Like the one about iOS you've mentioned, but also Google Chrome release history and the Firefox release history and the History of Android. In essence, this discussion is also about these articles. If these changelogs have to go, so have the Chrome/Firefox/Android/etc. changelogs. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:Other stuff exists. But I wholeheartedly agree that all comprehensive changelogs should be removed from Wikipedia, or pared down to include only important/noteworthy information. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the consoles’ articles (unless summary style is warranted), and do away with the excessively detailed changelogs. Do we need to let readers know that the PS3 added Vita support in November 2011? Absolutely. Do we need to let them know that it added a menu option to delete Vita backups? Absolutely not. As for merging, the system software is not notable in its own right. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And a suggestion to anyone who has found the changelogs useful: You are free (under the CC-BY-SA terms) to copy the tables to a Wikia site devoted to a particular console, or all consoles, or what have you. You’re free to start your own wiki and preserve the update history there. If it’s already been removed from our article, just find it in the page history. If Wikipedia is the only resource hosting this content, change that. Especially now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the PSVita and PSP articles to the top list as this discussion is also about these articles and they where missing. However, I've also noticed that on the PlayStation 3/4/Portable/Vita articles the changelogs have already been removed before a consensus is made here. They should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
The changelogs in these articles were removed per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed them from the list, since it strikes me as very inappropriate to alter what is ostensibly being discussed in the middle of the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: A friendly reminder that AfD "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." What Wikipedia is not is a core WP policy and the only defense above is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (not policy-backed). I get that editors find the changelogs useful, but I don't think those editors understand the scope of the encyclopedia forged through many years of consensus. – czar 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ll also point out WP:USEFUL, as another user did earlier. It’s great that some find it useful, but is it encyclopedic? That’s the pertinent question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentioned in Talk:Nintendo_3DS_system_software#About that update history, we could in fact limit the past versions of the systems software to important and/or noteworthy details instead of either keeping or deleting all of them. --Cartakes (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve posted that on every affected article’s Talk, actually. I was thinking these updates or features could be discussed in running text rather than presented tabularly, as well as discussing what makes them significant. But if we just cut the fat from the tables, that would also be great. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those tables are not WP:USEFUL in the sense that a changelog is useful for a software developer, i.e. for finding out every change from one minor version to the next; which is what WP:NOTCHANGELOG was crafted to avoid. They are WP:USEFUL in the sense of providing information that has been regarded relevant by third party RSs, of what versions are the most significant and what changes between them are important; and that is encyclopedic, as being noted by reliable sources which provide analysis in the context of the topic is how we define the WP:DUE weight of content. Diego (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it was relevant at the time of release, that’s one thing. Maintaining that relevance after the changes are long past is quite another. I posit that not only the majority of the versions documented in these articles, but the majority of feature updates and changes in the remaining versions, would fail e.g. the 10 year test. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. If a feature or version received analysis and coverage from independent sources, that does not wane away merely because of passage of time. Diego (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without changelogs sure changelogs are against wiki policy but the content of the articles can be rewritten to fit the style of WP:PROSE and no longer appear to be changelogs and leave out all over detailed or non notable content, for example major features being delivered via a software update is most certainly notable, but it doesn't need a changelog, though personally I would like to see the changelogs stay and though Wikipedia is notorious for double standards (as the iOS changelog has gone unchallenged for quite some time, but gaming console changelogs are to be deleted), but policy is policy, but then again I've seen enough "seasoned" editors throw out wikipolicies whenever they please and with these articles I'm sure that a lot of experienced editors have contributed to these changelogs, too bad that there isn't an option to migrate them to more specialized Wikia sites. --58.187.228.171 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- “too bad that there isn't an option to migrate them to more specialized Wikia sites”—What’s stopping you? This would be ideal, I think. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move software changelogs to console's page then redirect 202.160.36.113 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 202.160.36.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep without the changelogs or merge into ~~Nintendo 3DS~~ their respective console page. Ana r chyte 03:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the entries referenced to reliable sources per WP:CHANGELOG, which states: "Use reliable third-party in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article." WP:CHANGELOG is not a prohibition to have changelogs, it's a warning againts excessively detailed ones. Everyone saying that the policy forbids changelogs should re-read what its wording actually says. It is commonly understood that a listing of the main changes from one version to the next, with its significance being analyzed by reliable sources, is encyclopedic and not against the policy.
Also, comment: please keep the content of the articles being discussed while they are being an object of debate. This removal of the article's contents make it difficult to know what we are talking about.
Also, I agree with SamB's request to discuss each article on its own merits. Blanket interpretations of policy are not useful, each decision should be made according to the level of coverage in reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. Diego (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If our changelogs included third-party analysis of each version’s significance, there’d be a strong case for keeping them intact. But there doesn’t appear to be any discussion of significance, just feature-lists and changes. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's one more reason for debating each article independently, with a line by line analysis of sources for each table, rather than a blanket "belongs/does not belong" for multiple articles at the same time. Diego (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“Please keep the content of the articles being discussed while they are being an object of debate.” Why? If we can make the articles less problematic and less likely to be deleted, isn’t that a Good Thing? In fact, I’m fair certain that working to improve an article while it’s being considered for deletion is actively encouraged. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious? Because we don't agree that removing the tables in an improvement; that's precisely what's being discussed. Not being able to see what we're talking about makes it hard to analyze it. (And, the articles are not likely to be deleted before the deletion discussion ends. :-) The current status of articles doesn't influence deletion discussions, only what the can become). Diego (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think one good compromise solution would be to keep a line in the tables for each version which has received third party coverage. Other intermediate versions between those could be lumped together in a single line (e.g. "Versions 1.5.7a - 1.8b: new features and bug fixes"). The trick is to turn WP:CHANGELOGs into WP:TIMELINEs, i.e. lists of events which are relevant to the sofware as covered by independent reliable sources. Diego (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:NOTCHANGELOG is misguided to begin with. For software that has met the bar for noteworthiness I believe version data should be kept in a sub-page as has been done with the game consoles previously. Wikipedia is likely to be one of very few long term reliable host of this data in to the future, if it is not held on Wikipedia it is likely to become lost in time. The main article about the game console is not being impacting by storing version info on a separate page. As it does not impact the readability of the main article are we risking the longevity of this popular data over some disk space? Deleting popular data in an era where disk space is cheap does not appear to serve any people currently or into the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.173.214 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 58.160.173.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see WP:RELNOT; it lists “If it is not stored in Wikipedia it will be lost to the world” as an erroneous argument. The longevity of the data is only a concern if the data’s relevance has longevity, itself. That is what I, for one, am questioning. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that that rule should be up for revision, NOTCHANGELOG doesn't seem to apply to History of iOS and editors for years have claimed that these changes are notable and relevant, I honestly second them and it would be a shame to see all these articles go as they do not seem un-encyclopedic to me in the least bit, in fact I'd almost say that the NOTCHANGELOG rule should be challenged and that operating systems with sufficient coverage and notability should have a sort of changelog as the NOTCHANGELOG was written in a time before mobile operating systems and constant computer updates, in fact today we live in a world where operating systems are more different from themselves after several over-the-air updates than they were with major releases in the past, the whole rule seems archaic and personally I'd say that we should keep these pages, though it's sad that someone prematurely deleted the Xbox One system software page. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoang the Hoangest: Xbox One system software is still intact.
As for the rest, that’s a discussion for WT:NOT. If you’d rather not open that discussion yourself, would you mind if I quoted you there? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. very useful and in-depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.185.230 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion clearly heads in the direction of no consensus; I am relisting it for the second time in the (weak) hope the consensus could be achieved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this thread located above the relisting notices, to a comment by @Diego Moya: WP:NOTPAPER only means we don’t have technical limitations on the amount of content. “However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done ….” So the question is not whether these articles or changelogs take up too much space, or whether anyone finds them useful, but how well-suited they are to an encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and how well suited is the content is determined by the availability of third-party reliable sources discussing its relevance (which several entries in the tables of sofwtare changes in the linked articles have, BTW). It has nothing to do with the content being "general" or "suitable for all audiences". The myth that Wikipedia is only a general encyclopedia is dispelled the moment you find an article about an obscure mathematical demonstration, historical character or medical condition. In fact we have a whole guideline (linked from WP:NOTPAPER) dedicated to explain how to split the content that is too detailed for a general article and have the more specific parts organized in related articles. Diego (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some updates do have sources discussing their relevance. So let’s limit our version histories to those particular versions, and discuss the relevance rather than the changes. Problem solved. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said we should do :-) Diego (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'll explain the definition of WP:NOTCHANGELOG "Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Note that Wikipedia doesn't care if you think changelogs are not encyclopedic Wikipedia is not against changelogs if there are plenty of 3rd party sources that cover it (thus making them notable) and as far as I can tell every article mentioned in this nomination has had a significant amount of 3rd party coverage and I'm sick of people abusing WP:NOTCHANGELOG as an excuse to delete any changelog on Wikipedia if enough neutral sources cover them then they are not against WP:NOTCHANGELOG sometimes I think that those people just read the title of WP:NOTCHANGELOG without ever reading what the actual guideline says, this nomination is completely unfounded and unsourced material is almost always removed from Wikipedia, heck well sourced material gets removed so citing the older definition of WP:NOTCHANGELOG holds no relevance in the light of this discussion. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As an encyclopedia first and foremost, Wikipedia certainly does care whether any given content is encyclopedic. There’s no blanket ban on changelogs, but exhaustive changelogs are unnecessary and undue, and most if not all of the entries on these pages cite primary sources exclusively while absolutely failing to discuss the update’s relevance or establish long-term significance.
  In short, I don’t know what changelogs you’re talking about, but the ones I’m seeing don’t cite much if any third-party coverage. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:08, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SaRenna Lee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBio Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No award wins and mainstream work is insufficient to satisfy WP:PORNBIO or WP:ENT. Lacks significant reliable source coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Porn press coverage is trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the relevant SNGs as well as the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:42, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olorode Samuel Oluade[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local government chairman are generally not considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government Chairman (or woman) are just like County Executives here in the US and the Leader of the County Council in the UK. I do not see County Executive and Leader of the County Council pages of being tagged for deletion. The County Board of Legislators here in the US is very similar to the Local Government Council, the elected Legislators represent a district, while elected Members represent a ward and are in charge of a field (ex. Environment, Finance and Supplies, Estate & Valuation, Youths & Sports). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even in the United States and the United Kingdom county councillors don't get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist. Local government officials can get into Wikipedia if they can be reliably sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but they do not get an automatic right to keep a Wikipedia article that's written this poorly and/or rests entirely on primary sources and Wordpress or Blogspot blogs as this does. WP:NPOL explicitly limits the notability of local political figures to those who can be well-sourced to reliable source coverage, and does not grant automatic inclusion rights to all members of any county or municipal government just because it's possible to verify that they exist. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be sourced properly to substantive coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can You please inform me of any deleted County Executive Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many, trust me. I'm not going to spend my time hunting down every past example for you, but for one very recent example, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Saul. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This LGA is too small to give its chairman inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Saul was a councilor who was the ceremonial position, Olorode Samuel Oluade is an elected official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. He still doesn't get an inclusion freebie just for existing, if the article isn't citing any reliable source coverage to earn him inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afijio may not be the largest, or most populous LGA in Oyo State, though the northern border of the LGA reaches the ancient city of Oyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelimian21 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has an area of 722 km² and a population of 134,173 at the 2006 census.Aelimian21 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Only national and firts-level-below-national politicians have de facto inherent notability, everybody in lower levels needs coverage to pass GNG. Web searches turn up only a few routine announcements and press releases. Kraxler (talk) 14:56, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Lee[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Nominations no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only award nominations. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by reliable sources. Adult Video News coverage appears to be regurgitated press releases. Not finding additional independent RS coverage in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple noms fails the new WP:PORNBIO, no coverage in reliable sources otherwise, so delete. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been deleted on my PROD last year, but the PROD was removed by a Benjeboi sock. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:44, 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 delete. None of the keep !votes is even remotely policy-based Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Lane[edit]

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

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

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

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

Doesnt meet GNG or PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with one individual and three scene-related award nominations. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Even if you count the AVN profile as reliable, it's not enough by itself. Not finding additional RS coverage in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 nominations, no wins, no coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just checked the 11 O'clock news... There was a notable lack of mention as to how this page is causing cancer, burning houses down, or killing Lions with funny British names. With that said, Lane put her time in, did amazing work, and was recognized for said work. Yes, being nominated means something. Great that y'all can link to rules and regs demonstrating why Lane's wiki should be removed, and by those arbitrary bureaucratic standards I'm sure your horse is nice and high... But again, an astoundingly beautiful woman who was incredibly good at what she did, shouldn't be pitched into the internet waste bin because someone has a hair up there and is going to quote chapter and verse pointless rules. And please, let us avoid the well worn trail that is saying how we need to clean up the clutter on wiki. Starting with former porn stars out of the business for years shouldn't be above the fourteenth page and eight hundred and eighteenth edit on Ben Franklin's predilection for hookers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per Gene93k's sound analysis, reinforced by tonight's evening news. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. I'm not sure how The Golden Rule is "pointless." She may not be run-of-the-mill, but I don't find anything to show she is Wiki-worthy. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Gene93k's argument outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Craziest thing… Yesterday I stubbed my toe, was diagnosed with Stendhal syndrome (gotta stay way from those Jackson Pollock paintings!), and Microsoft finally took away my Zune stock because they just felt really bad, and I thought to myself… Yep, Vanessa Lane’s wiki, it’s gotta be Lane’s wiki! Cleary I’m a rookie at this, but with the hundreds, dare I say even thousands of entries on wiki, why is it necessary to delete this page? You hit the page down key once and you’ve passed the ending. Primefac is right in one regard, she’s hardly run of the mil, and that right there is reason enough that she is wiki worthy. Not to mention being recognized by her peers and working hard at being unique in an industry filled with clone techniques. So like yeah, what I said. -PiercingGreen10 — PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You already voted on August 8th, so the 2nd, "keep" from today has been struck. Continue to comment as you desire, but do not cast multiple votes, please; this isn't Chicago. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Somewhat relevant D list "celebrity". She is an icon in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgboperative (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — Kgboperative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per Gene93 and my own search for sources which yielded nothing significant. If she were in fact an icon in the industry, there would be some coverage, surely. --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My sweeps did not turn up anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition @Tarc – Okay, honestly didn’t know. Second, love the reference! @KGBOperative – I wouldn’t consider her D list anymore than I’d consider her A list, mainstream wise anyway. Related to porn, well there is no list she could be on with her abilities and looks being as such, but of course this is just an opinion, so I don’t want to violate the spirit or letter of the regs… Which everyone shares granted, I just admit it. Anywho, the shame of this is one, she actually has the acting chops to be a mainstream actress and two, she apparently talked about her interest in doing so at one point. Now is this iron clad reasoning surrounded by four walls and a ceiling that abide by the rules stated above perfectly? Not so much. So I suppose my beef is with this whole notion to begin with, let alone how this wiki entry shouldn't fall victim. However, clearly the iron clad reasoning I’ve given holds no water, sadly, despite the iron cladiness. @TheVanessaLaneWebResearchingChairs – Yeah no, just no. -PiercingGreen10

Delete. My internet detective skills find nothing about her on the Google. @PiercingGreen10 No, just no..--FlyingButterBall (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.102.49.198 (talk) — 94.102.49.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, PiercingGreen10, we are pointing to our policies and guidelines. These represent the community's consensus. The community agrees that no subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, Wikipedia would end up with articles on my 11th grade French teacher (a total hottie, BTW), the horrible garage band the 14 year old next door is starting up and your grandmother's jello salad recipe. If you believe those things should be included, along with this poorly sourced WP:BLP, feel free to start your own wiki project or work to change this one. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. @FlyingButterBall – Clearly the gumshoes you’ve employed are long past retirement. @SummerPHD – ‘Substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.’ Welp, you’ve got me there. Clearly the standards for porno stars having wiki pages are a tall order when it comes to those like Lane and similar, who again, have entries that are complete before you hit the page down button once. Now, related to those examples you cited, I would gladly peruse an entry on your hot teacher, feel that that 14 year old may get his or her break on wiki, and will say you best not be busting on my gma’s recipes brah! Not just worthy of wiki, they’re worthy of Julia Child and that racist southern broad combined! In seriousness though, this logic is not beyond my simplistic mind. But how many pages should be scrubbed that more than meet all the criteria? And how many have been scrubbed that didn’t? My presence here now is because this entry may fall victim as an example of the latter. I’m not advocating that every person that films themselves doing something sexual should have a page… But those that were professionals in that field, and were recognized as such, not to mention the raw sexual energy and ability to contort herself into a pretzel with aplomb that Lane did so well, well, I’m just repeating myself now. Annnnyyyywho, having sufficiently won not just the battle but the war, the day, and the internet, ole Uncle PiercingGreen10 accepts your apologies and expects things to be left as they are. –PiercingGreen10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiercingGreen10 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 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 and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gina LaMarca[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is lightweight even for porn bios, there's literally nothing of importance this person has done. Not hard to imagine why reliable sources cannot be found for a one-and-done film stint. Tarc (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps did not produce anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO because Penthouse Pet of the Year is a well known and significant award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the Penthouse Pet of the Year is an inherently notable award is not one that has gained a consensus that I can find. In fact, after perusing some WP:N archives, I found some guy who once opined ...we agreed that Playmates should be presumed notable since all Playmates seem to be frequently covered by reliable mainstream sources but the presumption does not seem to apply to all Penthouse Pets. Curious, no? Tarc (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not curious at all with proper context. The conversation was whether the monthly Pets and Playmates should be considered notable considering being a centerfold was not an award. I was summarising consensus at the time which favoured Playboy over Penthouse. However, Penthouse Pet of the Year is an award competed by the monthly pets just like Playboy Playmates compete for the Playmate of the Year. Opinions can change but mine hasn't on this issue[38] despite your attempt at irony and misdirection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus is still present today. Penthouse is like Playboy's sluttier cousin, and while Playmates are seen as an iconic part of American culture, Penthouse Pets, Hustler Honeys, and a dozen other "of-the-month" (and even of-the-year) awards by other publications, are not. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pet of the Year, like Playmate of the Year, isn't an award; it's a job. The person who "wins" it does promotional work for the publication. Playmates of the Year get more coverage than Pets do, but they don't necessarily get individual articles. About half the Playmates of the Year in the current millennium don't have individual articles, reflecting the fact that some of them haven't generated the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. About half the Pets of the Year don't have individual articles, either, and the ones that do typically satisfy the awards standards of PORNBIO (with a few meeting WP:ENTERTAINER for mainstream media appearances). Consensus and practice call for case-by-case evaluation. LaMarca fails PORNBIO and has no nontrivial mainstream credits; there's no claim she otherwise has coverage satisfying the GNG. Therefore, the article should be deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pageant winners have promotional obligations, but no one argues their crowns are not awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - While I think that an argument can be made that Penthouse Pets of the Year are notable, I believe the best course of action at this time would be to redirect this current stand-alone article. Guy1890 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Past practice in similar cases has been to delete and allow, but not require, creation of a redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:48, 15 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kraven[edit]

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

Fails pornbio and gng. Nominations no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin; discard the above per WP:ITSNOTABLE, please. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin; discard comment by Tarc. Please read intro of WP:BIO/WP:PORNBIO: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline (red. only guideline, not rules or law). It is a generally accepted standard that editors should (red. not must) attempt (red. only attempt) to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".
even if not meet new version of pornbio, I base my vote for common sense: arguments: 9 nominations to awards, 5 x interwiki, 192 films, >0.5 mln results in Google... - for me, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, guidelines can be ignored in select cases, but as your argument boils down to "I don't like WP:PORNBIO therefore keep because of lots of google hits, the article is on other Wikis, and lots of nominations", I doubt it will win anyone over. Tarc (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop conjectures and speculation. Slandering other users is a personal attack. I analyze a person and all arguments - person is notable or not, I do not look blindly only at pornobio. Pornobio is underdeveloped and no reasonable, must to improve. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "slander" here, there are jsut editors challenging your flawed arguments. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "I don't like..." as my text, this is not my text, this is slanders or similar. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"this is slanders or similar" - You have absolutely no idea if Tarc is slandering you or not do you ?, You should buy a dictionary and read the definition of these words before using them!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the Faye Reagan AfD, you have called the changes to PORNBIO "too radical and idiotically." You have protested the guideline repeatedly. Saying that you don't like it is a fair assessment, not a personal attack. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply restating and summarizing the gist of your keep rationale. Seriously, have a cup of tea and simmer down a bit. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple noms is no longer a pornbio criteria, also zero coverage in independent, reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin: the "vote" above should be discarded per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the only argument opposing deletion is merely "she's notable", then she's not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Coverage is mainly reprinted press releases in porn trade magazines. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Appeals for a common sense exception need verifiable evidence, which does not appear to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per delete comments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:48, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INgage Networks[edit]

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

My searches found nothing particularly good to suggest improvement and better notability, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Essentially, the press releases and such seem to noticeably outweigh the good coverage. If you wish, I suggest looking through the history and seeing how the article has changed over the years but there has never actually been much good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are all junk and/or broken links, server errors, awards, or articles that do not mention the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage that establishes notability. Mostly press releases available. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:02, 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 Ward Churchill. Overall, there seems to be consensus that these articles should not be kept as separate articles. However, there does not appear to be consensus about whether these articles should be deleted outright or merged to other articles. I am therefore closing this as Redirect to Ward Churchill", leaving the articles' content available in their respective histories for possible merge elsewhere, after appropriate discussion on the respective talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill controversies articles[edit]

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

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

I came across this randomly and can't believe that we thought it a good idea to have two dedicated articles about an investigation into the academic conduct of one academic, or about the controversy concerning one essay he wrote (which itself has an article already). We don't usually allow "Foo controversies" articles because they tend to give undue weight to the negative aspects of somebody's life. A fortiori, this applies to articles dedicated to one particular controversy, unless the person is so notable that a subarticle is warranted per WP:SS. In this case, though, the person isn't especially notable apart from the controversies about him, so the two main articles - about the person and his book - should be enough to cover the associated controversies in adequate depth. Because this seems to be already the case in the main articles Ward Churchill and On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, these subarticles can be deleted. If only to have a chance to keep our content BLP-compliant, we don't really need a walled garden of Ward Churchill controversy articles. Sandstein 11:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein mentions the "chance to keep our content BLP-compliant". I am unaware of any any BLP policy violations in any of the articles. What are they?

Deicas (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unsure at to what BLP issues you are referring to above.

Deicas (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest Merging Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy to On the Justice of Roosting Chickens because the former is a response to the latter and the response section in the latter is short (some editing is probably called for but it's not urgent). But Delete Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation because it's already covered adequately in Ward Churchill and it's hardly the world's biggest or most consequential academic scandal. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation -- Strong Keep. This would have the effect of airbrushing the past. This airbrushing might be appealing to Ward Churchill's partisans but it would also be a NPOV violation. If the existance of Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation as a separate article is sufficiently objectionable then I suggest that it be merged with Ward Churchill with no loss of meaning or citations.

Deicas (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation being "hardly the world's biggest or most consequential academic scandal": I make no claim of "biggest" but the dismissal of a full professor for plagiarism and research falsification etc., with coverage by the national media, qualifies it as a big academic scandal.

Deicas (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion policy-compliant arguments, herein, offered to support the article's deletion seem to be based on WP:NN. If I am missing any compliant reasons that are not based on WP:NN would someone please reference them? If, indeed, all policy-compliant reason *are* based on WP:NN then I'm hard-pressed to how see topics that have received the volume of press coverage that they have, over the duration that they've been covered, as WP:NN. Perhaps someone making the WP:NN deletion argument would like to extend their reasoning?

Deicas (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't use a deletion discussion for editorial choices, but I definitely suggest merging all three articles to a single one. Churchill is notable almost entirely for his publication of one article and the negative consequences thereof. Any attention that's been paid to him or his ideas otherwise is a side effect of that. Three articles are not, therefore, required. Two articles are not required either. I will express no opinion here as to whether the one article should be primarily about Churchill or about Roosting Chickens, except to say that WP:BLP1E probably doesn't apply to someone who is still being discussed fourteen years after the 1E. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the least, merge to Ward Churchill. I agree completely with Sandstein's reasoning. GregJackP Boomer! 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two "controversy" articles as unnecessary; both controversy topics can be encyclopedically covered in the existing BLP and Book articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think these two articles should be treated in the same AfD. I would like to see the AfDs separated. The two articles were created and written by different editors, they have widely different imports, scope, RS reportage, and repurcussions, and opinions are likely to be divided on the independent merits of each one. These are not minor, frivolous, or non-notable topics (especially the misconduct one). I propose and request that the AfDs be separated. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles have the same problems and can therefore be discussed separately. If no consensus emerges, we can start separate discussions. Sandstein 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Softlavender's suggestion to split into one AfD per article.

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. Important, highly controversial, highly notable WP:GNG topic/subject; too long to merge without undue overwheliming of parent article without loss of important data. I have no opinion, leaning to merge to Ward Churchill, on the 9/11 article. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that this isn't so important as to require a dedicated article. Controversies should normally be covered in the articles about their subjects. We don't need all of this content in the main article; we are not a newspaper and it is not our job to regurgitate everything that has been reported in the media about a particular topic. Sandstein 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: Does your judgement "My view is that this isn't so important as to require a dedicated article" fall under the invalid reason for article deletion, per[Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process], "[a]rticles we are not interested in"?

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are, as an encyclopedia, interested in the topic of Ward Churchill and his works and associated controversies, I suppose. But this does not mean that we need to cover this topic in more than one or two articles. Sandstein 15:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: With regard to your comment just above: I suggest that you withdraw this AfD and create AfD for each of Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation. We can have the keep-or-merge discussions there.

Deicas (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the issues are similar and the contents are related, so we can discuss this together. Sandstein 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. It's routine for merge discussions, where the possibility of merging into a single article is at least fairly likely, for the discussion to be centralized. Forking this into two AfDs would be pointless proceduralism like that countermanded by WP:LAWYER / WP:BUREAUCRACY. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. No need to split these out, they both address the same issue. Call it Permissive joinder, if we must label it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone point to Wikipedia style documents that would cast light on keep-or-merge decisions and separate controversies articles for BLP?

Deicas (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This is a content issue, not a style matter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the extent needed, and adjust the PoV for neutrality; otherwise delete. Together, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy might form a proper article. Together, Ward Churchill and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation form one for certain. I'm skeptical anything from the two controversy pieces needs to be moved into the academic and book articles, but not opposed to it if there is. Regardless, we don't need any, much less two, WP:POVFORKed "controversy" articles about the same academic. I tend to agree with E.M.Gregory, below, that the article on the essay/book doesn't survive WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic, and that merging all these articles into a single article on the academic would produce a more encyclopedic result, and eliminate a PoV maintenance headache. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Revised. 21:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a separate article just on the phrase "Little Eichmanns" - or purportedly so, though the actual content doesn't match the premise. That's far too many articles on a barely notable academic who once put his foot a bit too far into his own mouth. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Eichmann has little to do with Ward Churchill; it was a notable phrase before he used it. I've worked on that article some, now (though I agree it needs to better support its premise about usage/meaning). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)SMcCandlish: If you believe that the article (which one?) has POV issues I suggest that you tag the offending article with the POV template.

Deicas (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The merging process should resolve any such issues. Can tag it later if it still needs work in that regard. Tagging it now would be kind of WP:POINTy, and easily misinterpreted as an attempt to sway the AfD. You can tag it in the interim if you want, but I'll pass. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of these highly inflated articles. Note, in particular, that On the Justice of Roosting Chickens appears at a glance to be an article about a book, (although it in fact covers both essay and book) and yet the book was hardly noted when published (I only found a review in the small activist mag Counterpunch) and would not support an article on its own. The essay probably could, but it is more usual in such cases to merge useful info into the bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a purely practical level, it is a lot of work to keep articles about controversial issues NPOV. Keeping 3 articles about a minor academic involved in a brief (albeit intense and national) controversy has the effect of multiplying the task of monitoring controversial articles beyond Wikipedians' capacity to keep up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the whole lot. What we have here is a biography of a minor academic, who wrote one notable essay, which gave birth to a minor book and caused a controversy - the whole lot would best fit into a single article. Each of the articles individually barely manage to scrape over the GNG bar, as a single article it should clear it comfortably. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation into Ward Churchill and merge Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy into On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is clear that the articles cannot stand as-is, but there's no clarity as to whether they should be merged or deleted altogether. –Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misconduct investigation is already adequately covered in Ward Churchill and needs no more merging; the article can be deleted. I would redirect the 9/11 controversy article to On the Justice of Roosting Chickens such that interested editors can merge any relevant content from the history. Sandstein 06:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein-- I don't see how your "already adequately covered" fits into the legitimate reasons for article deletion in List of policies and guidelines Favoring deletion and WP:DEL-REASON. Would you please explain you reasoning in the context of applicable policies and guidelines? As Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation has more complete coverage of the issue than Ward Churchill, wouldn't deletion of that content create a WP:NPOV violation?

Deicas (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most the the text above describes issues other than legitimate reasons for article deletion as found in List of policies and guidelines Favoring deletion and WP:DEL-REASON. I ask that editors strike-out reasons and reasoning not found therein. Deicas (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I read the comments above I suspect that there will be no consensus for any deletions. I suggest that the next steps should be: 1) close the AfD and; 2) propose the merger of [On the Justice of Roosting Chickens] into [Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy]. Assuming this course of action is taken, after the merge is performed we need to check that we are naming/citing/linking "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"(book) AKA "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U. S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality" and "Some People Push Back"(essay) AKA '"Some People Push Back": On the Justice of Roosting Chickens' correctly; I'm not convinced that we are. Could we please merge the articles *one* pair of articles at a time to avoid confusion? Deicas (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing yet another set of article(s)/title(s) into this mix isn't helping. You need to address those issues elsewhere, on the appropriate talk page(s). Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Jao[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. All sources (most are dead links) are from related entities or youtube/facebook. Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's been quite a vocal proponent of campus access for religious groups in the face of some non-discrimination policies at various universities and related court cases in the past few years. I took out the dead links and updated the article since it seems nobody has touched it in years. I'm leaving momentarily for a week's vacation, but would be glad to find more sources upon my return. 74.84.224.45 (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources are presented with him as the subject or that give biographical details. Does not pass N or GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage relies exclusively in very minor Christian news sources. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:FoCuSandLeArN's characterization of Christianity Today, Christian Broadcasting Network, and Christian Post as "very minor" news sources is simply, flat-out wrong. However, I can find no reviews or RS of any kind on Jao's 2 authored books or on his co-authored study guide. What I do find - in major news sources, including major secular media, are mentions of his role in campus controversies as national field director for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Being the staffer who is quoted on or even, as with Jao, involved in news-worthy controversies does not confer notability unless, of course, those news sources confer notability by writing about you, not just mentioning or quoting you as staff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the aritcile on InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has 949 chapters on 616 campuses. IVCF is a para-church interdenominational organisation, but we should accord it similar status to a denomination. I am not clear what the role of a "national field director" is, but it sounds like the head of the organisation. I note that his previous post was as director for certain states. If I am right, his status is somewhat equivalent to a bishop or the moderator of a denomination, whom we would not think of deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Party Never Ends[edit]

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

Sources are missrepresented. Twitter is not a reliable source, WP:NOTE? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless other, more reliable and independent sources can be found. The current sources are either not reliable (twitter, youtube), or are simply promotional (music.com). It's difficult to research on google news due to the fact that the album title is such a generic phrase. I went through quite a few pages, but could find nothing which showed the notability of this album. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:23, 7 August 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) 02:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the chart positions fail WP:V, notability can not be established, sources in the article are extremely questionable, as pointed aout above Kraxler (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Rayne[edit]

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

No independent non-universe evidence of this character's notability. The character seems to have appeared in four episodes of the show and two issues of the comic book. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's certainly covered in some books on Buffy. If not quite notable, a selective merge to List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters would be better than deletion: edited because there's a lot of likely-unsourceable content, a lot of plot summary, and some possibly original research here. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 25 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) 00:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) per Colapeninsula. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:25, 6 August 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) 02:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, as above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:03, 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Shantha Bulegoda[edit]

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

Doesn't come close to satisfying WP:MUSBIO. The general references contained in the article, just provide a passing mention to the subject, establishing he exists but doesn't establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability and no inline references.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to establish notability -- Chamith (talk) 18:27, 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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videscape[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:40, 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) 01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches including the simplest ones found nothing and that's not surprising as the company is almost not even a year old. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 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. This has had 3 weeks now and the only argument for deletion is that it was unsourced, which has now been somewhat addressed. The arguments for keeping are not the strongest I've seen but there is certainly more consensus for keeping. Michig (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise Tales[edit]

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

This article has been completely unreferenced for almost 9 years. I can't find any reviews or any sources which indicate the book meets either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not familiar with the book, but Google turns up with quite a large number of hits. The book is listed in several online book stores, this is also where the (missing) ISBNs can be found (ISBN 0840763891 and ISBN 9780840763891) and from the specs and plot summaries listed there it is easy to verify the information given in our article to be accurate, so we can be sure that we didn't spread any false information. The information we give is verifiable. A quick one minute search revealed one independent review already: [39]. So, formally WP:NBOOK is almost fulfilled already. With a bit more effort, I'm confident, more reviews and refs can be turned up. This appears more a question of work than of notability to me.

In general, while articles must met some notability, I think, what is as much (if not even more) important in a deletion decision is if the provided contents is accurate and neutral, does not harm anyone (BLP) and isn't some kind of ad or junk. With these criteria being met, I'm willing to give some slack in regard to formalities, for as long as I see a net gain for the project as a whole. Inclusion criteria were more relaxed when the article was created many years ago, this should be taken into account as well. And finally, any deletion of constructive work is a destruction of another editor's work - in a situation with a significantly decreasing number of active Wikipedia editors, we must keep editors motivated as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:21, 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) 00:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- unless this is a hoax, it is not wholly unreferenced, as the orignal contributor presumably had the book in front of him (or her) as they wrote about it. No view on its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have added the book review mentioned by Matthiaspaul and added referenced words that it has been used by schools, so article almost meets notability books, but like afd on A Book of Giants, it is difficult to find online citations.Coolabahapple (talk) 17:12, 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) 01:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep via recent WP:SUPPORT and WP:INVOLVE that the article has been improved since it has been nominated. Also, because like Matthiaspaul already stated that the article WP:NBOOK was almost fulfilled already. Perhaps that's already happened! I also agree with something else they said, which is that deletion is basically the destruction of another editor's work. I, myself, have significant doubt about wanting to put time and effort into an article which (apparently must be pre-approved too) only to see it nominated for deletion. Unless it's a clear case of self-promotion, it seems, to me at least, that articles should be given more than a day to grow. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life... and Stuff[edit]

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

I highly doubt that this is even notable. Never heard of it before, poorly referenced and very short article overall. TF5 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because an editor hasn't heard of it before doesn't mean it isn't notable. It's a short article yet the references are hardly poor. Reviews from The New York Times and Los Angeles Times? Two of the biggest newspapers in the world? And a television series that was broadcast on a major television network like CBS? It's notable. Neptune's Trident (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Neptune's Trident. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book store shoplifting[edit]

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

Despite my profound professional interest in this topic, this still reeks of original research and synthesis, draws very heavily on a handful of non-encyclopedic articles, and generally has no place here. Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprising myself, but yeah, this is a notable topic as shown by stories in the NYT and other major sources. The stories were about the general topic, not just individual cases. Borock (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeing significant RS coverage, more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG. See [40][41][42]. North of Eden (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why there is an entire article dedicated to shoplifting of books baffles me. If this is fair to exist so shall shoplifting of every kind of store. Theres no place for an article like this for the sake of an encyclopedia. NewJibaJabba (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewJibaJabba: Your point is well taken. But as goofy as this topic may be, it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is enough to merit an article. North of Eden (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered enough to pass GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources in article, UScentric nature of article could be improved upon (although a quick search does not bring up much from elsewhere). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 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. Michig (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Stanford[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Nothing in his bio makes him particularly notable Gbawden (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Stanford is notable under two sections of WP:SOLDIER.

He played an important role in a significant military event (the Laotian Civil War);

He made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to him (a functional forward air control system to manage Operation Barrel Roll and Operation Steel Tiger). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 July 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:49, 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) 06:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:SOLDIER, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To repeat the provisions of WP:SOLDIER that were ignored above:
- "5. Played an important role in a significant military event;" (the Laotian Civil War)
- "7. Made a material contribution to military science that is indisputably attributed to them;" (founded a forward air control system that was a major constituent of that war).
- The end result of his action was the founding of the heaviest bombing campaign ever directed at a single nation, directed by Stanford's successors, the Raven Forward Air Controllers.
- As for GNG—there are six reliable significant sources independent of the subject listed as textual references on Stanford.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't play an "important role".
Nowhere does it say he "founded a forward air control system" or that, if he did, it was an advance on any other such system.
Nowhere does it say a "bombing campaign" resulted from his action.
None of the references are about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Stanford had demonstrated the necessity for forward air control in Laos; his successors were the Raven Forward Air Controllers. The resulting air campaigns would drop about the same tonnage of bombs on Laos as were dropped during World War II." Direct quote from the lead section. I am going to add a bit of emphasis to this in the original. Details of these assertions follow in the body of the article.
The body of the article also describes his forward air control activities. It is clear he is the first forward air controller in the country except for the flying visit by the air control team for Operation Triangle. It is obvious he had to have set it up. Are you sure you have read this article? Thoroughly?Georgejdorner (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Forward Air Controllers disagrees with you: "Two of the Butterfly Air Force combat controllers were Master Sergeant Charles Larimore Jones, soon joined by Technical Sergeant James J. Stanford." (bolding mine) That article also doesn't ascribe any particular significance to that fact either. Even if Stanford were first, how is being the first to implement it in a country a notable advancement. Demonstrating the necessity also doesn't qualify. Did he invent forward air control or a new type of it? That would be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Charles Larimore Jones and Stanford teamed up to begin a forward air control system. Even as Sir Arthur Harris, 1st Baronet began a strategic bombing campaign in WWII. Neither effort was wholly original in conception; both campaigns ended with about the same tonnage of bombs dropped; both campaigns are notable.
And thank you for calling the shortcoming of Raven FACs to my attention. I intend to add the significance of the Lao bombing campaign soonest.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable sources to write an article about him, so passes WP:GNG. Passes WP:SOLDIER by playing a significant part in an important event. Accept that he contributed to the development of forward air control. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments needed, lest we're forced to relist indefinitely or make a procedural close that nobody particularly likes. Thanks! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramananda Prasad[edit]

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

He was successful, but I don't see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sending WP:APPNOTE to Tone and RightCowLeftCoast. Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Thanks for notifying me of this AfD and I am interested in seeing what the wider community's opinion is on the notability of the author. I am still on a wikibreak recovering from San Diego Comic-Con, but will take some time to respond. Also perhaps Tokyogirl79 would like to put in their two bits given the admin's recent attempt to improve NAUTHOR.

I contested a prod placed by the creator of this AfD in August 2014, due to notability based on WP:AUTHOR. I believe my point still stands. The books translated by the subject of this AfD, crediting the subject of this AfD as the translating author, have been widely cited by numerous reliable sources. Now I am not a subject matter expert on Indian culture or literature, so it'd be best to sort this deletion into the Hindu and Indian delsort sections to get their opinion on the notability of the subject of this AfD.

Overall, I would say a Weak Keep is my present opinion, as outside of the subject's translation of Hindu text, I can not outright say the subject is notable; that being said, meeting WP:AUTHOR should be sufficient (just like how a baseball player that has only been in a single MLB game is considered notable (yes I know that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST train of thought argument).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look for sources, but offhand I'd say that the multiple reprintings of the Bhagavad Gita could (or at least should) count towards something since that's not really a small task, assuming that he directly translated it (as opposed to basing his work on an existing translation, akin to how some will create a new interpretation of the Bible). I'm not overly familiar with the publisher so I'm not sure if they'd hold as much weight as say, something published through an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it's somewhat easier for things to go through multiple reprintings with other publishers than it is with an academic press. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 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) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into Bhagavad Gita. This intro, which is a mainstream reliable sources, says that there are over 200 English translations of the Bhagavad Gita. They analyze some of them, and, in particular, conclude that Prasad's one is inaccurate. Other than that, I was not able to find any reliable sources for Prasad, which are independent of the society he founded.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 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. Michig (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Mill Restaurant[edit]

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

I'm sure it's a nice historic place and I was going to let it be but all my searches found absolutely nothing aside from listings, visitor blogs, etc. It seems the website says it's for lease (site hasn't changed since 2011 it seems and this article hasn't had much activity) and their website is the only link to support this thus pretty much original research with no further available sources. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage in independent and reliable sources; accordingly, it fails WP:GNG and is certainly not notable as a business, either. North of Eden (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I ran across this article a while ago and meant to PROD it but it slipped my mind. Fails GNG. Vrac (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vrac, thanks for commenting! I was actually going to initially ping you when I started the nom but I wasn't sure if you wanted to comment. Let me guess, you had this on your watchlist? Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... You must be spending some time in the orphanage :) Vrac (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search showed no significant coverage. Now, if this was the Old Mill Restaurant in Pigeon Forge, TN, that would be a different story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 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.