< 27 January	29 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto (2016 film)[edit]

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

The film outlined in this topic has not been made, even after the rights to create the film were acquired by a company to do so in 2010. Since then, there has not been any news in regards to this film being made or being in production. Also, this article was formerly a redirect to Pluto (manga)#Film adaptation, but since there has been no reportable news in regards to the future of this film, or if it will even be started, this is a complete WP:CRYSTALBALL situation. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Redirect~~ but per policy it can ~~for now to~~ be spoken of at Pluto (manga)#Film adaptation where information can be added and sourced until a film article meets WP:NF. An article may be one day welcome, but this one is simply a case of being TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with the option of retargeting this title to its applicable section is: the date in the disambiguator is actually a year that not even sources site. It was given its current year disambiguator to move its attributions and allow Pluto (2012 film) to move over Pluto (film). So, unless a different disambiguator can be decided on that does not include a year, the redirect could be interpreted as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It's plans can still be spoken of at Pluto (manga)#Film adaptation, but I agree the title is unsure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Acquiring the rights to something doesn't always guarantee a result. So, to be safe, delete the page, wait until we get more confirmation on this film, and once we do, remake the page; plans change, you know. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per MQS - No need for an article right not so may aswell point editors to something worth reading. –Davey2010^Talk 02:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I don't disagree with you, but if redirecting is the answer, I think it should not be done with this title. The disambiguator is erroneous on purpose since its previous title, Pluto (film), was freed to move another article, Pluto (2012 film), onto it. Maybe a separate redirect can be created to the section (Pluto (manga)#Film adaptation), such as Pluto (manga film). Redirecting from a title with an erroneous, uncited date would just confuse readers. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: I still think this planned film can be spoken of in the suggested target, but in digging, I realized the term "Pluto (2016 film)" is not a searchable term and thus have reversed myself. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON - I was actually gonna vote as such but meh shit happens, Would've been nice if the Echo thing worked as I could've changed this 3 days ago!. –Davey2010^Talk 04:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:TOOSOON and because of my possibly impulsive decision to become deletionist. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:44, 6 February 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 by Alexf (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Sitanggang[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Havent played in any professional league. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:A10, since the article copies Paolo Sitanggang. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:09, 29 January 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. Clear WP:CSD#A11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holme wood (Drama)[edit]

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

non notable (fake?) unsourced TV show Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 28 January 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 American Sniper (film). Stifle (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Sniper (film) controversies[edit]

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

We don't really need to explain every single complaint this movie has had; there's enough information in the "criticism" section of the original article to not warrant a separate article. Besides, most films don't usually get their own controversy pages, even if it's a very controversial film. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant notable non-redundant information to American Sniper (film). I agree with nominator and don't see the necessity of this article.--Pink Bull 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the considerable amount of criticism against the movie, I vote to either preferably Keep or Merge relevant information to the main article. However, the praxis there has been to minimise all critical information. David A (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A sub-article is generally split from a film article if the section's content overwhelms the rest of the article. However, this sub-article does not seem to be split from the main article, nor does it seem to be a well-written compilation of commentary. I do think there is enough detail among all the commentary to warrant a sub-article, with the main article having a summary section that links to it. However, I think the sub-article needs to be more proven to warrant that. Right now, it is just a quote farm without any kind of interweaving being done with sections about depicting Chris Kyle, depicting heroism in war, depicting non-Americans, etc. On the other hand, maybe the existence of this space would encourage editing to detail the debates more than is done in the main article, which I find too high-level. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into American Sniper (film). I agree with User:Erik's comment. In my view we should give the community ample time to further develop the article and continue to improve, extend, broaden and deepen the content of the article. After all, there is no deadline - Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't rush to delete the article, it's not a competition. IjonTichy (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least condense and Merge...User:IjonTichyIjonTichy stated he thought a spin-off of the critical reviews of the movie would be needed. It appeared that he and a few others were having trouble getting all the bad opinions that they wanted in the main page on the movie. I told him that sounded like a POV FORK which is normally against policy. This looks like a place to coatrack every single non expert opinion about the movie. I've seen some POV pushing in my day but this is one of worst examples as of late.--MONGO 21:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-article, if kept, should have responses to the commentary too. The director and the screenwriter have said their piece, which should be included here too. That would satisfy WP:NPOV in which Wikipedia merely describes this particular dispute. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Eastwood response. IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IjonTichy, I don't know if it is enough. I agree with other editors that the POV slant is heavy. Per WP:STRUCTURE, the debate needs to be folded. For example, a "Portrayal of Chris Kyle" section would have people discussing how his portrayal compares to real life and others discussing how that should not matter. The lack of that is what is driving the delete !votes, unfortunately. I think this is the kind of topic that has to earn its stay, not one that is inherently able to be wholly separate from the main article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NPOVFACT is pertinent: "This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article." If this page is deleted, you can request for the page to be userfied so you can work with the sources if needed. I think it is best to go back to the main article and develop the specific sections about the different topics before proceeding with a split, which would then solely be based on size. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to article. The subject of the criticism is the film, the criticism itself is not notable enough to merit a standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge and condense: I remember a controversial film called The Passion of the Christ. How about A Clockwork Orange? I even remember another controversial film called The Interview, that yes, may have inspired the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack, but look how all of those film articles deftly handle criticism within their own article. The only devoted film controversy article I found after a cursory search is Fahrenheit 9/11 controversies, which is similarly bloated with block quotes, bullet points, and lack of editorial discretion. I see little likelihood of a lasting effect and it's to soon to tell if duration of coverage will be any more or less than other controversial films. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

update: I've since found Reactions to Innocence of Muslims, but let's be serious: regarding American Sniper no one has died, stormed embassies, or issued fatwas because of film critics and celebrities doing what they do for a living. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The record shows the film has been criticized by a much wider swath of commentators than the usual 'film critics and celebrities.' It has been criticized by ex-soldiers, academics, investigative journalists, authors and other scholars, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups. IjonTichy (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? Just because other people other than film critics and celebrities criticize a film doesn't make the criticisms and controversies notable for their own page. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism covers political, social, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious and other aspects of society. The critics are published experts in their respective fields. There is no reason to hurry to delete. With time, new editors (more talented than me) may discover the article and work on the rich set of reliable sources to compile them together into something more 'coherent' (for lack of a better word). IjonTichy (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request has nothing to do with timing; rather, it has to do with notability. Saying "don't rush to request deletion" isn't a good reason as to why this shouldn't be deleted. Generally, even the most controversial films don't have subpages for their controversy/criticism sections (with the notable exception for Fahrenheit 9/11, but that's something totally different), which is why this AfD was created. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 04:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Why is Fahrenheit 9/11 "totally different"? In fact, in addition to differences between the two articles, there are probably also similarities. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a POV-pushing "whinery." --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:C16D:F841:5D7F:2DFD (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this comes under WP:POVFORK, which is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:POVFORK: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except for in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." IjonTichy (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to gain consensus to add material to the main page and then creating a fork is, by definition, a WP:POVFORK. This is the case of a subsection that gre too large, rather it is a case where a POV was believed to be underrepresented and a new article was created to skirt consensus: the very definition of a POV fark. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gothicfilm and DHeyward, if we merged it in the main article, I don't think we would have space in the Criticism section for "Eastwood's response". Would you agree to leave out the "Eastwood's response" section in a merged article? --Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)?[reply]

The criticism should be proportional to its coverage. Ruling in or out responses depends on their coverage. So far, it's overwhelmingly positive which is why a POV fork is not allowed. --DHeyward (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the film getting "overwhelmingly positive" reviews, I think that is distinct from the ongoing social commentary (as I'd prefer to call it). In the realm of critical reception, there should be due weight toward sampling positive reviews. Metacritic shows that there are no outright negative reviews, so sampling mixed reviews would be appropriate as a smaller part of covering critical reception. However, I don't find that the "overwhelmingly positive" metric applies to the social commentary, which is more in regard to what the film means about culture and society. In terms of balance, I don't think there is really a consensus over the prevalence of one side over the other. WP:DUE says to represent significant viewpoints published by reliable sources, and I think that there have been both arguments and counter-arguments in these sources. These can be combined in the proper structure and the appropriate attributions made. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, Erik makes a good point. There is the cinematic quality of the film, which is what the film reviews rate, and there is the social message of the film, which is what WP:RSs have been writing about. Every film book I've ever seen says that Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation were great movies, but they don't usually endorse their social message. When I read the major newspapers and magazines on Google News, the opinion about the social message seems to be split, as described in that New York Times article I linked to in the entry's Talk page. DHeyward, what evidence do you have that the opinion of WP:RSs on the film's social message is overwhelmingly positive? --Nbauman (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews and box office. The social criticism is largely directed at subjects other than the film such as the Iraq war, war in general, snipers in general, Chris Kyle and Clint Eastwood. The social criticism is tangential at best to the movie. Claiming the social grievances are related to the movie is short-sighted and misses the mark. The narrative of the movie is widely acclaimed by film critic reviews and the public. It is not the place to explore the social aspects of the movie beyond the relative coverage in reliable sources which is overwhelmingly positive. That makes this new article a POV fork that is attempting to bypass the relative coverage of the movie in reliable sources. These views have already been expressed in articles directly related to the war. We don't need to have a POV /coatrack article that rehashes all the stuff already explored in articles depicting the Iraq War. --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The social criticism is not tangential, especially when you have The New York Times providing some semblance of a recap of what has been going on. Professional film criticism is distinct from social criticism, and per policy, we cannot use the box office to eject the social criticism; WP:DUE says in a footnote, "The viewpoint of the general public is not relevant and should not be considered." I'm not trying to argue to keep the article, but the metric of film critics cannot be applied to commentators who are not film critics. It is appropriate to cover the debates, but it has to be done with a neutral structure, which I agree with you is not accomplished here. But it can be done. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the social criticism is not tangential. Especially as a lot of it is focused on the film being extremely unfaithful to the reality of Kyle's character, autobiography, and the slanted presentation of the conflict depicted within the movie. A socially dangerous work is only made more dangerous by being an excellent piece of craftsmanship. David A (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source from December 28, 2012, appears to support the comments above by David A and Nbauman: "[Time Magazine cultural critic Poniewozik said] “Film history is full of movies that are false, amoral, brutal, sadistic, yet are triumphs of vision and storytelling.” Poniewozik is not wrong, of course. There have been films, from Birth of a Nation to Triumph of the Will, that are aesthetically compelling but politically and ethically odious; some would add the recent films of Quentin Tarantino to this list. And political writers rarely believe art takes precedence over current events or history. But if political writers do their job well, they understand something even more important: that ideological meaning and agendas are not incidental to thrilling films and cinematography. Why surgically remove politics from a discussion of a film’s final quality, rendering the argument so purely aesthetic that it becomes low-brow decadent, as is Richard Roeper’s in a broadcast. Roeper crowns Zero Dark Thirty the best film of the year: “a masterwork of filmmaking … holy ‘bleep’ ”? Ethical lapses or gaps in movies should be critiqued, along with bad performances or absurd storylines." ^[who?]

First, there is no comparison of a biopic that makes no judgements to Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation as all the social criticism of the movie is about points it didn't make, rather than propaganda. Second, neither of those very disgusting social messages has a separate controversy article. They hit all the social criticism in a single section with only a few references. Why would anyone think that this movie needs a separate article to explore social controversies when Nazi and Klan films do not? It's absurd. The only reason is that social controversy of this movie does not have any traction and is overwhelmed by positive reviews including from war opponents. The handful of commentators that think the movie should have said something more do not deserve a special POV platform outside their fringe view. --DHeyward (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that American Sniper makes judgements and that the comparison to Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation and Zero Dark Thirty is valid. The social criticism of the movie is mostly about points the film made directly or indirectly (by implication and other techniques). Social controversy of this movie has a great deal of traction, and the positive reviews of the slick presentation and coruscated style of the film is a separate issue from the social criticism. Many scholars, ex-soldiers, journalists, commentators and other sources criticized all four of these films for their false interpretation of history, politics, culture, ethics, religion and other aspects of society. Sources also criticized the four films for serving as war propaganda, and for the films' arguments in support for racism, objectification and vilification of people, legitimization of mass murder including the murder of children, and more. The contents of all four works have received widespread criticism for their blatantly racist and fantastical depictions of scenes that are presented onscreen as if in documentary or near-documentary form. All four films have been widely criticized as using spectacular, slick filmmaking to promote profoundly unethical, immoral, evil deeds and ideologies. IjonTichy (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork of the film that could not gain consensus to add in the original article. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The controversy over this movie has become a subject in its own right. For example, ‘American Sniper’ Fuels a War on the Home Front, By Cara Buckley, NYT, Jan. 28, 2015. I think Merge would be best, but many editors of American Sniper (film) keep deleting criticisms and condensing them into snippets, and/or adding "rebuttal." There doesn't seem to be any solution acceptable to those editors, so rather than an edit war it would be better to have a separate article. Besides, the debate involves a huge number of WP:RSs and issues, and it would be a difficult or impossible job to summarize them concisely in a way that would be satisfactory to both sides. If we had a merge, I don't think there would be space for the "Eastwood's response" section. Other editors want it in. I would ask those editors who want to merge: Would you accept the merged article without "Eastwood's response"? --Nbauman (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to take a different tack in covering the various debates about the film. I am not a fan of sections simply marked "Controversy" or "Controversies" since these headings can appear to "unduly favor one point of view", as WP:STRUCTURE says. A more neutral structure could be something like a "Social commentary" section under which we have various subsections such as "Portrayal of Chris Kyle". Just reading these headings, one cannot tell what POV is favored. The subsections themselves can then contain properly "folded" write-ups that describes the dispute per WP:YESPOV and provides due weight of the commentary from various reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Sniper (film) without direct merging, though a link to an old version can be provided on the film article's talk page for source mining. I do believe it is possible for there to be a sub-article covering the debates, but due to the POV issues, I would rather re-focus the material on the main article and continue with related discussions on the talk page to develop the material there first. Only then would it be appropriate to split that material to its own article solely on account of size. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Sniper (film). Criticism of the film is notable, but the POV fork is totally unnecessary. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Sniper (film) can easily be summarized in main article. Like Chase indicated, this is just a POV fork. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per above. Carrite (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fringe QQ'ing, worth of a condensed mention in a "Reactions" type section of the main article, just like 1000's of other films, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and only merge the best stuff) Real controversy has one side saying one thing and another saying another. This sort of "controversy" is basically just what they call "buzz" for summer films. Good enough for CNN and Monday Nitro, but not for an encylopedia article. The actual controversies can easily fit in less space than they currently do in the main article. The rest is "Reception". InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the quotes and links here could also find far more suitable homes in one of the many wider topics they discuss. Most of the Wikilinks here lead to physical things, but the headers are full of themes. You may have read it because it had "American Sniper" in the headline, but that doesn't mean you can't apply what you learned elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the best parts: This is no Life of Brian or even The Interview, these "controversies" are mere soundbites and columns. Merge the most essential ones to a reception section. '''tAD''' (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above comments. Most important reliably sourced controversy should be included on the American Sniper page in a "Reception" section. Similar to most film pages with positive/negative notable critiques. Reception should maintain NPOV though and display most important commentary after the film buzz dies down. Jppcap (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or condense, I found the article to be useful after hearing about the film this morning. -Reagle (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that it seems like the overwhelming vote is for the article to be merged into the sub-section of the main page, I think that it might be relevant to mention that I have started writing brief summaries for what seems to be the most relevant articles. Help to streamline the text into a more coherent flow with the various sentiments organised and categorised by people more capable of doing so than me would be very appreciated. Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT SCORE of this very unclear "vote" (i.e., several vote for several outcomes): Merge = 12 Keep = 3 Delete = 10. Not "overwhelming" by a long shot. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:51F6:2D1B:6EA0:A387 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Really? I only counted either 7 or 8 delete votes, depending on whether or not the anonymous insulting IP vote is counted (and I don't think that it is), as well as currently 13 merge, and 4 keep, of which the independent one should probably be counted to the merge score, as it said "and/or condense", making 14 votes to the merge column. David A (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pov fork. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 6 February 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 was probably going to lead to deletion anyway, especially since the only defence of the article here is an ad hominem attack on the nominator. However, any doubt disappears when it is realised that the article was created by a blocked editor in violation of a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harley-Davidson Riders Club of Great Britain[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. This club has not been the subject of any significant coverage. There's about a dozen or so routine announcements of charity events and so on, but per WP:ROUTINE, these don't establish notability. Ultimate Harley-Davidson is only a mention in the Acknowledgements for one club member who helped the author. Business Travel: Conferences, Incentive Travel a routine directory listing. You can find a couple other such listings at Google Books: [1][2]. At Highbeam you can find a few more mentions of social events:

BIKERS ZOOM IN FOR KIDS' VISIT. Birmingham Mail (England) August 2, 2010.
Trust's wacky racers make a final UK stop. Dover Express, October 6, 2011
Bikers Invade Butlins for Big Birthday Bash. The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland) February 1, 2003

Routine announcements of local events that don't tell us anything about the club itself; the same coverage is given to thousands of knitting clubs or car clubs around the world. The only sources of actual facts to base an article on is the clubs own press releases. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was going to let this slide when I saw the new article on 17 January, but the AfD brought it into stronger focus that the references are pretty weak. - Brianhe (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a merely part of a person dispute and a personally motivated attack on myself by Dennis as I challenged his POV pushing on other topics. --Salty Batter (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Soud Al-Jinaie[edit]

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

Restored article that was speedy deleted per WP:G4. Speedy deletion was declined on the grounds that he has made his debut for Al-Arabi since the last afd, which is arguably a significant difference. However, since the Kuwaiti Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro (see WP:FPL), the article still fails WP:NSPORT. He has also still not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Sitanggang[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete: Per WP:BLPSOURCES, unreferenced BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: That is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." also per WP:A7.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A7 does not apply. The bar for importance is far lower than that for notability. The rest of this argument is not covered by WP:CSD. WP:BLPSOURCES refers to the inclusion of material in an article, not the creation or deletion thereof. Also, none of the material in this article is particularly contentious. Despite the poor sourcing, no one is calling the veracity of the article into question. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BLPPROD articles created without any sources after march 18 2010 should be proposed for deletion, and that PROD can not be removed unless reliable sources are added. Also I do not think any of the claims in the article are notable, just been a player of a team that does not play in a fully professional league is not notable, but since you ask, and just in case, I have removed the Speedy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one external link supports the single sentence (even though it is a wiki), therefore WP:BLPPROD is not applicable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Has not yet played in a WP:FPL or FIFA tier 1 match. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:14, 3 February 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 Besides clearly running afoul of WP:NOTHOW, it's a coatrack article for the advertising link at the very end. Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Entity Options For A Self Directed IRA[edit]

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

WP:OR howto/essay sourced to wikipedia and primary govt docs. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as a new Wikipedia author, I am trying to figure out where the matter of contention is with this article. Reading the article Guide To Deletion in WP is not making it evident where the issues are. Can you provide insights and some guidance on how to make the article more Wikipedia friendly? Cozyretirement — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I see a comment on the article page that one of the issues that "This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. (January 2015)". There are actually links #1 through #5 and then #10 that are links to other Wikipedia articles. Also I received a message from Gaijin42 that Wikipedia articles referenced are not reliable sources. I apologize but these seem to be contradicting directions and I am a little confused. Should I have those links to Wikipedia articles or should I not? Please advise. I am working on the second issue mentioned about this article being an orphan and that I need to have links from other related articles to this one. Cozyretirement — Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Exclusive[edit]

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

Rather recent pageant with not too many Google Hits. But more worrying is that it does not substantiate its ties with Miss Earth and Miss Grand International. What is described here, seems to be a local version of a broader pageant, but that is not mentioned. The few sources available are shared with plain mismatches, a Miss Exclusive Nigeria who died recently and an accusation of fraud by the president of the pageant ((in Dutch) [3]). Community opinion needed as its seems to fail WP:GNG and lacks convincing reliability. The Banner talk 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source to claim notability. Fails WP:GNG --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weakly sourced promotional article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What else can I add to what's been said/noted already? Mabalu (talk) 02:23, 1 February 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. - I'll admit the article needs expanding a hell of a lot but notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Waheed[edit]

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

Apparently has only one novel he has done. Don't see much notability either. Wgolf (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having only one published novel doesn't allow to pass WP:GNG completely. Since this is just like one interview on his novel, which shows converge in independent source. But needs lots of more coverage to completely pass GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, he has written two novels, "The Book of Gold Leaves" and "The Collaborator". These novels have been reviewed in the Telegraph [4] the Independent [5] and The Guardian. [6] [7] These sources seem sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Everymorning talk 20:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3 and #4 (they have created a work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews/critical attention). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everymorning. PamD 23:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manasa Himavarsha[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. References consist of image collections and Google only shows the same. reddogsix (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -For an actor in Telugu, Tamil and Kannada film industry, sources are supposed to exists locally in their respective languages. I'm not sure why but looking at this kind of coverage of subject in the Indian mainstream reputable newspaper, also World's largest reading English newspaper Times of India and this one, -I am partially convinced that there must be some sort of sources in there that may help subject to meet the WP:GNG standard. This one also doesn't help but suggest their fame in their place. To put it plainly, the idea of hidden sources have restrained me making a !vote in here. I've asked creator in the meanwhile if they understand those local languages and may help with finding sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too early to have a wikipedia page for this person. Fails WP:NACTOR. Athachil (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Creator has replied on my talk page (my message). They have admitted themselves being a friend of subject and also opined that they are not interested in saving the article from deletion (why they repeatedly attempted to create it at first place, is mystery). All what I was able to find neither help subject to meet the WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR standard. However, I'm still open to amend my !vote if some body shows up with some real good sources (both in quality and quantity). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Daniel Shein (author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, does not seem to have any major success or news coverage. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites 1, 2 have mere mentions of him. Cite 3 doesn't even mention him. Cite 4 is about a movie in progress. I stopped there. This "best-selling" author's books sell for $.01, $.99 on Amazon. The Worldcat database shows only 3 of his books held each in one (1) library. One of the awards ("Davey") appears to be given to hundreds of companies per year, and is a "pay a fee and enter" award. Actually, looking at them, all of the awards seem to be of this type. LaMona (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 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. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan browser rendering engine[edit]

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

Too early for an article, based mostly on speculation ViperSnake151 Talk 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The rendering engine has already been released to users of the Windows Insider program.[8] Thus, it's not a matter of speculation. --RaviC (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: I wish ViperSnake151 had tried merger first. But two peanut-sized articles on something that is not yet released is unwarranted. This article's net worth is six sentences. Fleet Command (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with what? --Sdamon (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the size of the article is a reason for deletion. The engine is still in beta, and the article has almost as much content as the Blink article. --RaviC (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If for no other reason than, as a major windows component, it will get recreated after Build when much more information is known. --Sdamon (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, this is not WP:SNOW because it is not predicting an upcoming event. Secondly, the content of this article can, if necessary, be merged but not deleted as this is the Spartan browser's new engine. Since Spartan may become the successor of Internet Explorer, it is not worth deleting this article on the new engine. It would be like deleting the article on Trident to delete this. The article should be kept. If it is still possible to argue that this engine is only worth a section about it in a related article, merge but should not delete. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what Microsoft has said, the rendering engine is also going to become an essential component of the operating system, and all apps using the native web APIs in Windows 10 will use the new engine. Thus, merging the article with the browser article seems a little misplaced. --RaviC (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spyros Sofos[edit]

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

BLP of an academic of doubtful notability, with a troubled article history. Article was created by a (presumably autobiographical) single-purpose account and has only ever been substantially edited by that SPA on the one side and an aggressive and BLP-violating sockpuppeting detractor on the other. (The subject has also edited with a second account more recently, this time self-declared as himself, but this account has only engaged in legitimate and well-behaved defense against the defamatory socks). No strong evidence of meeting WP:PROF, no independent biographical coverage in reliable sources beyond routine mentioning of his academic work in bibliographies, book reviews, university websites and the like. PROD was removed on the argument that the alleged role of the subject as editor of a journal might meet WP:PROF, but that seems to have been misinformed, as he is indeed not sole editor but only member of the editorial board. The subject himself has indicated that he accepts he may not meet notability standards and has recommended deleting the article [9] Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A BLP on a marginally notable subject who recommends deletion due to persistent defamation? Obvious delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do everyone a favor by deleting this one. LaMona (talk) 23:37, 4 February 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vicetone[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet WP:BANDS criteria, also there are no independent sources for the information Kges1901 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The1stEditor: I have greatly expanded the content and sources for the article ever since it was nominated for deletion. I have added a large amount of cited information to the biography in particular and also have expanded their discography. In total, I have added six new links to cite the material from independent sources. This is on par with what is normal among articles that have been on Wikipedia by similar artists for a while. You can independently verify this though viewing the article from when it was submitted for deletion and after my edits. The1stEditor 11:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Angiev1997: I have added several relevant sources since this page's creation and references have now been placed on the page and show Vicetone's credentials to be granted a Wikipedia page. The page now has a similar number of references to other dance music artists of Wikipedia. Angiev1997 00:15, 30 January 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 The content of the article is substantially the same as the one previously deleted. There has been an attempt to change the references, but the fact remains that many of them don't mention Greer, others are not primarily about him, and some are not independent sources, so the changes in the references do not actually address the issues that led to deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg L Greer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable autobiography (creator's username = obvious autobio/coi)

Lots of refs, most of them don't mention the subject at all. Others quote the subject, but discussing some other topic. None of the sources are actually about Greer. (Also, Speedy delete, because I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregg L Greer after making this AFD) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as article is on main page. Non-admin closure.JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Compliant Trailing Edge[edit]

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

Non-notable. I removed one reference which was a post by Kota which didn't even mention ACTE. Most of the rest of the references are primary sources; Kota's own university faculty pages, and a publicity piece by NASA. Yes, they test flew his idea, but they test fly lots of stuff and a test flight doesn't make it notable. I didn't evaluate the Fox News reference beyond noting it was Fox News and dismissing it for that reason.

I can't find anyplace that supports the claim of 12% fuel savings; the only mention is in the Times of India article, which is a short local boy makes good human-interest article about Kota and only cites unnamed aeronautical experts worldwide.

I know this made the front page under DYK, but that just makes me wonder about the quality of the DYK review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:22, 28 January 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. Hoax. No trace of this series even existing. The purported release of DVDs before the technology was invented is also telling. Even if it did exist, WP:CSD#A7 would still be appropriate. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comedy World episodes[edit]

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

GoAnimate was launched in 2007, according to its article. The television series Comedy World (which has no article), was supposedly aired between 1987 and 1992. Soetermans. T / C 11:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:20, 28 January 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. (Keep for Meg Turney / Delete for Trisha Hershberger) j⚛e decker ^talk 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Hershberger[edit]

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

Tagged as CSDA7 when the contested deletion blurb noted an additional article in the same ballpark: Meg Turney. I figure to list them both for deletion on grounds of a lack of apparent significance and notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Meg Turney / Delete for Trisha Hershberger (at least for now): Pretty much this quote from the person who contest TH's deletion Trisha is popular and relevant enough to have a Wikipedia page. Her former co-host, Meg Turney has a Wikipedia page and has far less accomplishments than Trisha is invalid at least in regards to this Meg Turney article. It goes against this Wikipedia policy. Either way it's weird how Meg Turney has a Wikipedia page and has far less accomplishments than Trisha. can invoke someone to say that the Meg Turney article is in the same ballpark. Did the person who nommed Turney's article for deletion even realize that there are 20 references for Turney, hardly in the same ballpark as the 0 references on Hershberger's article. Yes, I'm aware that some of those 20 might be removed, but from a person whose made an article for Hershberger before and failed before, I can tell you from experience it was easier to find references for Turney than it was for Hershberger. So, obviously now the Hershberger article should be deleted because it has 0 references, but on the other hand that can obviously be improved upon. Soulbust (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meg Turney / Delete Trisha Hershberger While some of the Sources used in the Meg Turney article are questionable there are many more that meet the wp:rs standard.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Meg Turney / Delete for Trisha Hershberger Seriously, these pages may be related, but in no way are they similar, Meg has independent sourses where as Trisha has none. Why is there even a comparison?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 12:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BioPuppy[edit]

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

Software package that has attracted close to no independent writing. Article looks to be written by someone associated with the package. Website is now defunct. Fails all of the notability guidelines. Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, defunct specialized Linux distribution that never attracted a userbase or any independent coverage. Never even got picked up by distrowatch. The stated purpose of bundling a bunch of bioinformatics software into an intentionally lightweight distribution is a little dubious to begin with. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little to no coverage for the product. Don't see a true reason to keep this. Chosenone Pie (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - linux distribution of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The EMBnet ref may be RS, but at 1 paragraph is brief coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up additional RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 21:56, 4 February 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, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter O'Brien[edit]

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

Is this an elaborate hoax? There are no reliable third-party sources referenced here, all seem to originate from "O'Brien" himself. Any third-party coverage I can find either takes him at his word, or is a discussion of whether any of the claims made are real. Therefore the notability of this individual cannot be verified, and should, at best, be re-directed to Scorpion (TV series). Rob Sinden (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. A lot of unsubstantiated claims that have been completey debunked. Even the Irish Company Records Office has no record of O'Brien's supposed business. In Ireland, if you are doing business in any name other than your own, you have to have a Registered Business Name. A search of the Official Irish CRO Irish companies and business names search shows no such business. The claims of hacking NASA seem to be based on the work of others. Cliff Stoll wrote about a NASA hack in The_Cuckoo's_Egg and this was a real hack of NASA. O'Brien's claim to have hacked NASA looking for images of the Space Shuttle plans is also suspect because such plans were probably in a file format linked to the CAD software used to design the various components. It also seems quite bogus because at the time, downloading any such image or file would have taken hours, if not days on a dial-up line with a then available modem. In the US, 9600 Baud modems were available but 2400 Baud would have been more common. The quality of the telephone system in Ireland, especically rural Ireland, was poor. The claim about Homeland Security has also been debunked because it did not exist when O'Brien claimed to have hacked NASA. The claims about Churchill and Einstein getting the same kind of visa have also been shown to be rubbish as the particular visa did not exist in the 1940s. The IQ issue is completely discredited. The part about a SWAT team arresting this character in Ireland is actually lifted from the opening of the movie Hackers. The claims of identifying the Boston Bombers are probably rather offensive to the people who actually did this work. Many of O'Brien's claims seem to be based on the Hacker mythos and the hacks and work of others. Jmccormac (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things you talk about are in the article. You're wanting to delete a well-sourced article about an individual that clearly meets WP:GNG based on things not in the article? Wut?AbuRuud (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he established his business in 1988 is not confirmed by the Irish Company Records Office. Jmccormac (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Not confirmed" is not "denied." Further, that smacks of WP:ORIGINAL. Fast Company, on the other hand, clearly stated that Scorpion was created in 1988.[10] Now they later printed a story that questioned some of his biography, but they never mentioned or retracted that. So a reliable source with editorial oversight says it was 1988. Seems legit to me. Here's another RS that repeats it.[11]AbuRuud (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a a rehashed press release based on unreliable sources. When it comes to businesses being established in Ireland, the Irish Companies Registration Office is the authority. It is where business names and companies are registered. That local newspaper article merely rehashes O'Brien's claim to have established his business in 1988. The Irish CRO says that he did not then he did not. The Irish CRO is the ultimate authority on this and it is somewhat more authoritative than O'Brien's self-made claim. And Fasttocreate did not check to see if O'Brien's claims on the establishment date of his business were true. Jmccormac (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the proof of Fast Company's lack of fact-checking? If we can prove that RSes were in error without WP:OR, we should get rid of the 1988 date. But an issue with a single fact doesn't mean delete or take away WP:GNG. AfD is to see if articles should be deleted; it's not for fact checking. AbuRuud (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish CRO was probably not checked and O'Brien's claims were initially accepted on face value by Fasttocreate. Once they started to be questioned by people in the industry, there was a second article which seemed to address some of the rather dubious claims. Most US journalists would not have a working knowledge of Irish business legislation and requirements. Jmccormac (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the page should be deleted based on your assumptions about reliable sources alone?AbuRuud (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find information regarding Fast Company's lack of fact checking here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the silliest AFDs I've seen. The page has references to new articles from at least 15 separate publications. Some of the articles date back to the late 1980s. Quite a long time for a hoax to be perpetrated. I'm not sure what axe the nominator has to grind with O'Brien, but as someone who has spent significant amounts of time researching the subject and editing the page, it's clear that O'Brien is 100% real. Can every single one of his claims be independently verified? No. But many publications that are WP:RELIABLE have written about O'Brien. Easily meets WP:GNG. AbuRuud (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources back up O'Brien's claims about IQ, hacking or business establishment. Jmccormac (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not make any claims about O'Brien's IQ. Only that he claims to have a high IQ, which is supported by Fast Company, the Wall Street Journal, and the Irish Times. The article doesn't mention his hacking of anything. It says he was a part of an Information Olympiad, which is supported by contemporary news articles. There is some debate as to when his business was established, but its existence is talked about in TONs of articles. Saying newspapers aren't reliable because you feel like they aren't isn't a reason to delete a page.AbuRuud (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an incorrect fact is published in a newspaper, the act of publishing it does not make it a correct fact. Jmccormac (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find the WP:OR exception to WP:RS. Can you point it out?AbuRuud (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish CRO is a reliable source. O'Brien's self-made (effectively self-published) and unsubstantiated claim is not, even if it is repeated by what may appear to be reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted to the Irish CRO specifically disclaims responsibility for errors in the database. The fact Scorpion Computer Services is not listed in the database isn't proof positive the either a:) SCS did not exist; or b.) that the article should be deleted. The database isn't comprehensive by its own ommission, and using it to refute what is stated in RSes–whether you think its parroting O'Brien or not–is the very definition of WP:OR. By the way, can you prove that the editors at the respective newspapers did no fact checking? Absent your attempt at original research, of course. AbuRuud (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who claimed to have researched the topic. Doesn't that constitute WP:OR? If someone is doing business in a name other than their own, they have to, by law, file this business name with the Irish CRO. You do seem to be quite invested in this article. Jmccormac (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-read WP:OR. And I'm invested in Wikipedia and making sure pages aren't irresponsibly deleted.AbuRuud (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this aside, what's he actually notable for? Having a high IQ, and competing in a maths tournament (and even these are disputed) are not achievements enough for inclusion. I'm fairly convinced he fails all points at WP:Notability (people). The controversy surrounding his claims is actually more notable than he is as an individual. A couple of paragraphs at Scorpion (TV series) discussing this controversy would cover it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly meets WP:GNG. So there's that. Further, a fictionalized version of his life has been adapted by a major television network. That show is now going into its second season. What's the difference between him and, say, Richard Phillips (merchant mariner)? I look forward to voting keep on your presumably upcoming AfD of that page, too. Walter O'Brien is clearly notable for Wikipedia whether or not Reddit, Attrition.org, and random blogs like him. AbuRuud (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources on the article are first-hand accounts. Any of the claims from the Scorpion Computer Services and Langford & Carmichael websites have to be discounted, as does his Linkedin profile(!) Once you get that out of the way, aside from a few supposed unverifiable newspaper accounts, he is only written about in terms of the television programme. Therefore any discussion of him and his spurious claims should be left to the TV series page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to consider your comparison with Captain Phillips, look at the quality of the sources at Richard Phillips (merchant mariner). The events surrounding Phillips are verifiable from sources independent of the subject and he is obviously not a deluded Walter Mitty character like O'Brien. Any of the articles about O'Brien have himself at the source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating primary sources (which can be used to verify information on the page) with third-party sources, which prove notability. And no matter the amount of huffing and puffing you do, The Irish Times, IrishCentral, Fast Company, The Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail, and a host of local papers have written about him. WP:GNG. AbuRuud (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All with O'Brien himself at the heart of any "facts". Incidentally, some of the citations to some of these articles are questionable in themselves. Here's the Daily Mail archive for 14 August 2014. No mention of this, added by you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Catherine Fegan doesn't seem to have published an article since 2012. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tilting at windmills. Much like the Irish CRO database, the fact that Catherine Fegan doesn't have articles attributed to her in 2014 by Journalisted doesn't mean the article doesn't exist. Nor does it not being in the Daily Mail's online archive. Factiva, on the other hand, clearly has the article. Or are they a part of the grand consipracy? [12] AbuRuud (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of knowledge of Irish business regulations is no defence for including O'Brien's self-published claim. It is quite clear that the Irish CRO has no record of O'Brien's claimed business. If one is doing business in Ireland with a business name other than one's given name, then the name has to be registered with the Irish CRO. Technically it is needed for tax and banking purposes too. Most of the "sources" that you have added are from press release recycling Puffery sites rather than from trustworthy and reliable sources. They all repeat the same self-published claims without any verification and as such are not reliable sources. Perhaps you are unaware that the Attrition.org link on O'Brien is in its charlatan section. Perhaps that's a valid link that should be included in the article. I agree with Rob Sinden about O'Brien being the source of the Puffery and as such the article should be deleted/redirected. Jmccormac (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To get more input, I've notified all users who have been active on the article's talk page in the past, and added something to the Scorpion (TV series) talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This personal easily passes the WP:GNG. There has been articles written about him in reliable sources, some of them questioning his claims. He is notable even if a lot of his life is a hoax, based on coverage. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on notable hoaxes. WP:Hoaxes and Category:Impostors. Dream Focus 14:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be kept, do you agree the focus of the article should be shifted a bit to allow for greater discussion of the debunking of the O'Brien myth which seems to have had at least as much coverage as O'Brien's own claims, rather than present his lies as fact? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to use AfD as leverage to negotiate content? -- GreenC 14:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the intention. I'm in favour of reducing him to a couple of paragrahs on the Scorpion (TV series) page. I nominated it because the way it is now, it presents too many of his lies as fact, and once you strip out these there's no substance and not worth salvaging. However, if the article shifts focus to give as much weight to the coverage of O'Brien's fantasist tendencies, I can see some merit in keeping it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent too much time researching this individual and your assertion that most of the article is lies doesn't hold up. I agree he has told lies but he mixes truth with lies. All of the unverifiable extreme claims about his IQ, wealth and accomplishments are not in the article. The rest of it is a banal career. The problem with the debunking sources is they are largely unreliable and/or fall afoul of BLP, Wikipedia is not a hit piece to debunk people we happen to not like. -- GreenC 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know it seems like I keep wavering, but it's that banal career that seems non-notable to me. An unremarkable person, apart from his wild claims in the press. Hence why I think a couple of paragraphs at the TV series website would be enough to do him justice. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, people with banal careers can be notable. And "banal" is just my opinion. See also banality of evil (crossing the Godwin line now..) -- GreenC 16:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. -- GreenC 14:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Hoax or reality, clearly he's gotten coverage up the wazoo. You don't nominate an article for deletion because you want to change the way it should be written. --GRuban (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a problem with AbuRuud effectively taking ownership of the article and deleting elements that question or highlight the discrepancies in O'Brien's Puffery. The fact that the Irish CRO has no record of his business name is a rather glaring fact because it is a legal requirement in Ireland. Between various versions of O'Brien's supposed NASA hack story, his age changes. The personal computer type changes from being an Amstrad 464 to a Commodore 64. There are very serious issues about the claimed hack (DOHS operating before it was established and in Ireland. Technological aspects of his claims don't stand up. (Line quality on the Irish telephone system at the time. ARPAnet access. Modems. File types. Printers. ) The problem with hacking and such exploits is that for every genuine hacker, there are thousands more who would like to take the credit. The problem with most of the press coverage is that it is by people who can best be considered churnalists. They just recycle press releases and take parts of other articles in an attempt to provide content. Genuine investigative journalists tend to have higher standards and do tend to verify facts. There has been some good journalism on O'Brien's claims and it shot many of them down in flames. Jmccormac (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If basing a career on lies made someone not notable, we'd have to delete almost all of our articles about politicians. --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another speedy keep The filer wants to know if the article is an elaborate hoax. I was wondering the same about this deletion request. I find it a no-brainer that this article is valid and relevant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 30 January 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. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Primary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This initiative didn't make it on the ballot. This initiative's website (http://www.unifiedprimary.org) has expired. Markus Schulze 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that the reason stated above is a basis for deletion. Notability is not temporary. If this concept was notable during the first AfD, it still is. Since the first AfD closed as "no consensus", however, notability remains in question: we had experienced editors on both sides of that question, as well as editors whose interest seemed to more of a matter of advocacy. The issue was not, and still isn't, whether anyone actually uses this system: we can have articles about theoretical election models. The question should be whether the proposed system has received sufficient discussion to be notable under WP:GNG. Accordingly, it should be noted that a much longer version of this article was drastically cut, shortly after the AfD closed, by an editor opposed to the article, and in that curtailed state the article has remained since. The stated basis for this edit was that the prior version of the article was an advocacy piece, and perhaps it was, but the edit removed a number of reliable sources that might be taken as evidence for the notability of the concept. For my own part, I'm still unclear if "unified primary" is a sufficiently specific and descriptive name for the topic: I note, for example, that this article from The Oregonian called it an "approval voting primary". --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, this election method has never been used anywhere. And it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This election method is uninteresting from the theoretical point of view. The claim, that this method might be on the November 2014 ballot in Oregon, was the only reason why this article hasn't already been deleted last time. Markus Schulze 21:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that, as long as approval voting isn't used for primaries, the mere fact that approval voting could be used for primaries isn't sufficient to justify a separate Wikipedia article. Similarly, there is no Wikipedia article on "instant-runoff voting primary" or "Condorcet voting primary" or "range voting primary". Markus Schulze 08:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I cannot point to any policy that would justify a "keep," (except perhaps that the subject entered into public debate), I believe there remains "encyclopedic value" in the article - in its current form. Enos733 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 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 U-KISS. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Soohyun[edit]

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

Does not appear to have individual notability per WP:MUS, and should be redirected to U-KISS. Most of the article is actually about U-KISS. Random86 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to U-KISS. No reliable sources, no independent notability. Some content could be Merged, as the U-KISS article simply lists the members. It could have a paragraph on the leader. – Margin1522 (talk)
Delete and redirect to U-KISS. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of independent notability outside his group. Most of the article is about his group. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to U-Kiss, though looks like there may not be much person-specific info that needs to be moved over. References might still be good. Earflaps (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will suggest delete unless more information can be added. Really can't find much info related for the individual. Cec2020 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to U-KISS really nothing in here about him outside of the band. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Jat clans of Jalandhar Division[edit]

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

Despite the lead, this article is based on the 1911 census. That was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those curious about the Raj censuses might like to check out a draft article that I've been working on for a while. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is another one of the worthless, inaccurate lists created about every grouping of Jat clans in existence. The 1911 census has been declared invalid and inaccurate by consensus, and numerous lists of this type also based on said census have already been deleted - in fact, I don't believe there has been any other outcome for AfDs on lists like this. I don't know who is behind all these lists of Jat clans which always go back to the same invalid, hundred-year-old census but there isn't anything unique in this case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for convincing arguments above. kashmiri ^TALK 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 2 February 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 all country ambassadors in the template except for Ambassador of Colombia to the United States which, as LibStar did not tag it for deletion, I assume was not included in the nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Colombia to Australia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. not only did someone create a whole sprawling series of embassy of Colombia articles, a duplicate "ambassador of " series was created by the same person . I see no reason for this duplicate series. Also nominating all country ambassadors in this template:

v t e Ambassadors of Colombia
Current countries	Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile China Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador France Germany Guatemala Holy See Honduras India Indonesia Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kenya Lebanon Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Poland Portugal South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago Turkey United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Venezuela
International organizations	ACS AU ALADI ASEAN EU OAS UN UN at Geneva UN at Nairobi UN at Vienna UNESCO
Ambassadors to Colombia

LibStar (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have tagged all for deletion except Ambassador of Colombia to the United States, Permanent Representative of Colombia to the Organization of American States and Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, LibStar, you need to go through an actually tag each of those as having been nominated for deletion. These aren't the same thing as the people who hold these offices, they are the offices themselves. We're talking about whether or not a title is notable. In some instances, there might be some value in moving some content to x-x relations articles but mostly these are just indexes - lists of non-notable ambassadors. The two where I think the office itself might be notable are Ambassador of Colombia to the United States and Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations. There are maybe some others that I don't think should be the subject of an en masse nomination. But the nomination has to be fixed either way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is this different from "embassy of Colombia" series? LibStar (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really, there's just a couple from this list (unlike the other) that should be excluded. And they all need to be tagged. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will tag them, do you support deletion of any of these? LibStar (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Yeah, I probably support deleting all of them except for the ones I've mentioned above. But I can go through them properly and see if there are any others I might have concerns about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but those specified above. Embassies aren't inherently notable, ambassadors aren't inherently notable, their offices/titles certainly aren't inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't really much information on them and some only have one source. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but mentioned, as keeping one of these non-notable articles means we have to keep, hypothetically, 65536 or more completely redundant articles that have almost no useful information at all, except for the aforementioned articles that indeed have useful information. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Renata (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete walled garden of copy-pasted non-notable articles. As bad a mess as the X-Y relations that keep cropping up. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not notable in the slightest. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:13, 7 February 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 Charles_Manson#Tate_murders. Two other articles are discussed in the nomination, but they haven't been discussed by other participants so this close applies to Folger only, with no prejudice to relisting the others separately at any time. A generalised article on the Tate murders seems like a good idea, but of course is beyond the scope of this particular discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Folger[edit]

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

Simply put, this biography of a crime victim seems to fail WP:VICTIM ("The victim... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role"). All sources I see mention her in passing; if she hasn't been killed by Manson, her life up to that point wouldn't make her notable. Her membership in a prominent family doesn't matter (notability is not inherited), and claims of civil rights activity are unreferenced. What remains is the short section on her death (Abigail_Folger#Death), which per the policy ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") should be merged to Charles_Manson#Tate_murders (now, the Tate murders article should likely be split off into a subarticle, but that's another issue). This same rationale is also valid for Jay Sebring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ("an American hair stylist") and Steven Parent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ("Delivery boy, salesman") who have even less inherent notability (the other two victims were actors and seem to pass WP:ACTOR, so they are not part of this discussion). To recapitulate: Tate murders may be notable (through this is not being discussed); but three out of its five victims are not (fail WP:VICTIM) and should be merged back to the Charles_Manson#Tate_murders. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't find a whole lot of sources (as nom suggested I would not) that talk about her in much more detail beyond the "coffee heiress" who was one of those killed. The most in depth pages come from the murder/serial killer/crime fan [?] sites. (I don't know what to call them. Kind of ghoulish, but perhaps they count?) There also appears to be a smalltime play about her. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to whatever article winds up being about the Tate Murders (I agree that deserves a separate article). I agree that Abigail Folger is not notable except for being a victim of that highly notable crime. Same with Steven Parent, even more so, if someone wants to nominate it. IMO Wojciech Frykowski was not separately notable either. But I disagree about Jay Sebring; he was probably notable even without his connection with that crime. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I just noticed that the nominator placed AfD tags at the articles Jay Sebring and Steven Parent, referencing this AfD discussion. I have deleted those tags. Those two articles were not properly nominated for deletion, merely mentioned in an AfD about a different article. If you want to nominate Steven Parent for AfD I would support that. I have spent the past hour or so improving the references at the Jay Sebring article, and I think his independent notability is clearly demonstrated. In any case this is not the venue for discussing possible deletion of those two articles. Notice that both Rhododendrites and I assumed that Abigail Folger was the only article under discussion here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to generalized article on the Tate Murders. If Folger had died in her sleep at the time she died instead of being murdered, we would not take any notice of her. She is notable for being murdered, other things in her life do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete for now until more info is available for individuality Cec2020 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow WP:GNG or WP:42, we'd have to go with a technical keep. Her life as a celebrity and debutante was well-established in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones, to be precise? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thamarai (TV series)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ,Serial is not notable and lacks references every program in a Television channel is not notable ரவி (talk) 14:05, 20 January 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 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run in the mill TV show not notable.182.65.60.237 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources and just another TV show nothing notable.VanishingRainbow (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Most of the search results are for the lyricist Thamarai. Mentions in a few sources like this doesn't establish notability.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empowerment and Rights Institute[edit]

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

I've searched for sources and found little. Several sources mention in passing the government's raid on this group in 2005, and some give short quotes from its leaders, but I'm not finding anything in-depth. Perhaps some Chinese-language sources could help out here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The organization's own website has dozens of other references. They don't all mention it directly, but normally the 4 cites in the article should be enough. One thing is that all of those references are from 2005 or 2006, as were mentions in books. It might not exist anymore. But under WP:NTEMP, if it was notable in 2005 I think it's still keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked thru the sources on their website, and it's the exact same thing that promotional editors do here to create articles on non-notable groups: bombard with low-quality cites. More than half of their links are about human rights in general and make no mention of the organization, and the rest are mere passing mentions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think the purpose of that page was a bit different. It's about human rights, not about satisfying Wikipedia's GNG. But in any case, even if they don't mention the organization itself, if you look a bit deeper many do mention people connected to the organization. For example, you can search for this on Google for hits about the organization's director: [site:www.erichina.org "Hou Wenzhuo"]. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily finding plenty of source coverage and discussion at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep was able to find some good sources, really don't see any issues Cec2020 (talk) 01:59, 4 February 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Libraries (collection)[edit]

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

non-notable directory Fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Related discussion for Canadian varient at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Libraries. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – Not finding significant coverage to qualify the topic per WP:N. Only finding passing mentions (e.g. [13]) and instances where content from the collection is cited (e.g. [14]). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Per a serious lack of input here, pinging DGG, a librarian, in hopes to obtain their perspective. Note that this is not canvassing, as I am not suggesting how they should !vote if they choose to. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Responding to the ping, I'm not sure about whether what content would be most appropriate, but we need to keep the article. Such things are important, especially in terms of our mission as a supporter of open resources, regardless of whether they get written about. It may be possible to justify it by the conventional GNG, but in any case I would justify keeping it by IAR. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and IAR specifically applies in such cases. It might be desirable for us to have other ways of handling material like like this, but at present this seems the only practical way. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon further consideration, per DGG's rationale, vis-à-vis WP:IAR. The article technically also qualifies as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Internet Archive article per WP:SIZERULE. Also of note is that the Internet Archive article presently has a merge tag to merge this article into it. Struck my previous !vote above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per DGG's comment. However, the bulk of the article consists of the contributors list and I'm not sure how useful that is. I suspect it's far from complete, it's available from the reference link, and it's not clear why contributors are on the list. I'd like to see more about the process – how books get digitized and into the library. There was some information about that in hits like these: GB WSJ AL Magazine I'm definitely opposed to merging the list of contributors into Internet Archive. This should be about digitizing. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:23, 29 January 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. Valid invocation of WP:IAR. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Libraries[edit]

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

non-notable directory Fgnievinski (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Does not meet WP:N. Not finding coverage about the topic in reliable sources. Only finding citations, such as [15], [16], [17]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Related discussion for American variant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Libraries (collection). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per a serious lack of input here, pinging DGG, a librarian, in hopes to obtain their perspective. Note that this is not canvassing, as I am not suggesting how they should !vote if they choose to. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep I'm not sure about whether what content would be most appropriate, but we need to keep the article. Such things are important, especially in terms of our mission as a supporter of open resources, regardless of whether they get written about. It may be possible to justify it by the conventional GNG, but in any case I would justify keeping it by IAR. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, and IAR specifically applies in such cases. It might be desirable for us to have other ways of handling material like like this, but at present this seems the only practical way. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon further consideration, per DGG's rationale, vis-à-vis WP:IAR. The article technically also qualifies as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT of the Internet Archive article per WP:SIZERULE. Also of note is that the Internet Archive article presently has a merge tag to merge this article into it. Struck my previous !vote above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per comments above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Libraries (collection) – Margin1522 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Static Union[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability criteria for music bands. ƬheStrike Σagle 16:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per this article on cbn.com, the band was instrumental in the formation of Third Day's production studio and the launching of Rocketown Records modern rock imprint label. Their debut album was reviewed by Deborah Evans Price in Billboard magazine (6/10/2006, Volume 118 Issue 23, p 37). Their lead singer (Shawn Lewis) is a featured vocalist on two Dove-award winning albums (Glory Revealed and Glory Revealed II). They were interviewed by Jesus Freak Hideout. I think there is enough coverage to pass notability. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 20:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. G. Cook (Musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Cook lacks significant coverage from third parties ([18][19][20][21]). I think the more important question is how much of that coverage is separate from PC Music, the label he founded. Also, if the article is kept, it should probably be moved to A. G. Cook, which is currently a redirect. hinnk (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been redirected to A.G. Cook. Outside of his record label, I don't think he is notable. Therefore, I suggest Redirect to PC Music --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Quartarone[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that meet WP:MUSIC, there is also a page on the Itlaian Wikipedia that also has no reliable sources. Maybe someone more familiar with Italian can establish WP:MUSIC, otherwise I think this should be deleted. War wizard90 (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:33, 28 January 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. Discussion about the potential to convert the article to focus upon the subject's book can be discussed further on the article's talk page, if desired. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Ganser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniele Ganser (2nd nomination)

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

Delete As nominator. This article does not meet General Notability Requirements. It does not meet the specific requirements for Academics. It is substantially ~~(entirely)~~ the same article that has been already deleted. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was inspired to re-create the article after it had been deleted because Ganser's book is widely cited throughout Wikipedia and because there are already articles about him on many foreign language Wikipedias. However, I only spent a portion of one day gathering information on him so there's probably more good information on him out there which can be used to expand the article in time. My view is that Ganser is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography because of his widely-reviewed academic book, his activism with groups like the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, and his bringing to attention of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Note from the article that Ganser's research has occasionally garnered the attention of not just other academics, but also the CIA and State Department. Even if we might say that Ganser possibly does not meet the specific notability criteria of an academic, there seems little doubt that we can at least pass the article on general notability criteria.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was previoulsy discussed and rejected. Please review WP:PROF for the notability criteria under discussion. The Association of Peak Oil and Gas is likewise non-notable, so his activism within it and the conspiracy theory community does not add to notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read the previously deleted article, but according to the deletion review, it was only a "three sentence article". This is not a three-sentence article so presumably it is not "the same article that has been already deleted".CurtisNaito (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article caught my attention because it was so obviously a vanity project. But after this has been fixed, I can see CurtisNaito's argument for retention. Still I would consider turning the article into one about the book instead, as there isn't really too much "biography" material. For better or worse, the man's notability is his notability as a conspiracy nut, and it is really debatable whether his contributions there wouldn't better be delegated to the pages on the relevant consipracy theories. --dab (𒁳) 07:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was after reading your comment questioning whether this article met notability requirements that led me to propose it here for deletion. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have noticed an extensive amount of edits and other inputs to wikipedia articles that (like the suggestion here to remove the Daniel Ganser article) seem to be sourced from paid monitors from the Western, probably primarily U.S., intelligence agencies, and also from other corporate and 'nonprofit' sources that are heavily dependent upon the international Western aristocracy, or oligarchs within the Western industrialized countries, billionaires and their agents who possess inordinate influence especially at influential academic institutions (and who might, as a result, possess more influence over decisions at wikipedia than they warrant). Collectively, this is often called "The Establishment," and, to some people, that "elite" is automatically respected as to its objectivity or lack of bias; but, unfortunately, it and its predominant viewpoints are largely self-perpetuating and are also considered by Thomas Piketty and others to be a contributing cause toward the grossly and increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth.

I say this as a warning to wikipedia: you are being used.

The proposal to remove this article needs to be viewed with a very jaundiced eye; and serious consideration should be given toward establishing at wikipedia greatly improved systems for blocking, and for rooting out the existing, propagandistic abuses of wikipedia by that "Establishment_ -- a collective entity that represents the interests of aristocrats against the interests of the public.

If the growing trend toward fascism is to be reversed, then wikipedia must be actively on the side of reversing it, and must do everything within its means to thwart what I increasingly have come to recognize to be an organized and perfidious attempt to subvert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.126.21 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — 67.217.126.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I see a little coverage of his book, much less of the person. Online all I see him recognized for is conspiracy theory peddling. @CurtisNaito: what are the two best, most reliable sources you have found that provide independent, significant coverage of Ganser himself? VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book at least has received a fair amount of coverage. It already has five reviews in academic papers listed, and there are others but I didn't have access to every review that I knew existed. Note that apart from academic journals, the CIA and State Department were also interested in his research. The article may focus on his book rather than the man himself, but I think it's natural that scholars are more well known for their scholarship than their personal lives. Apart from book reviews though, the article does cite a brief biographical outline available in the book "Switzerland and the European Union", and news stories referring to him in Voltaire Network, Worldcrunch, and News & Politics Examiner. I think Ganser's biography here, as it is written so far, is comparable to that of other scholars like J. Arch Getty and Robert Gellately whose articles mostly deal with their scholarship and don't cite nearly as many secondary sources as this one.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ganser is a coauthor of Switzerland and the European Union. My !vote is delete since no sources meeting WP:BASIC have been presented, and my good faith searches have likewise turned up none. No objection to using some of the content in this biography to create a article on the book (which effectively is all the article is, anyways). VQuakr (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems his pages in Finnish, Spanish or German are out of question. I was just wondering why we hear about him by simply citating authors one-sided primarily criticising him (Hansen, Davies, Riste, Nuti, Kaplan, Heuser) instead of providing content or more of his studies. This is a question of quality standards. The request for deletion seems ideologically motivated, so I understand the unknown contributor above here. Calling someone "Conspiracy Theorist" is a conscious pejorative knockout argument for any objective discussion while there is an inflation of arguments. Besides sometimes official conspiracy theories are the most weird at all: Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iraqi Uranium in Niger... just to name a few. Gansers expertise is demanded by several mainly german speaking media: http://www.basellandschaftlichezeitung.ch/basel/baselbiet/attentat-auf-charlie-hebdo-ist-meiner-meinung-nach-ungeklaert-128789007 http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/26797630 https://www.freitag.de/autoren/kunstschnee/wir-haetten-eine-friedliche-welt http://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/dossiers/9-11/historiker-daniele-ganser-fordert-911-neu-zu-untersuchen-112899879 http://derstandard.at/1315005504773/911-Bundesstaaten-koennten-Neuuntersuchung-einleiten http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/man-toetet-um-erdoel-zu-kontrollieren.1008.de.html?dram:article_id=207351 Spearmind (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are reputable could you add them to the article? I don't speak German so I myself can't do anything with them. I think it's okay to call him a conspiracy theorist because some reliable secondary sources describe him as such, however, I do agree that it would be worthwhile to look for more sources on his life and work in search of some positive commentary to balance out the negative.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or delete Was able to find some good info but its borderline Cec2020 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11 and WP:G12 (source). — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Light Man Comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unsourced, promotional article about a non-notable comic book publisher. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources, and it looks like this article has been deleted in the past for non-notability. Neither "light man comics" nor "marek light" turn up any useable hits on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete non notabel; article, or variations, have been deleted at least 3 times before Deunanknute (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also, possible sockpuppet Light Man Comics Deunanknute (talk) 03:53, 28 January 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Arabic[edit]

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

Has never had any references and is a magnet for vandalism (not unlike other "List of programs broadcast by xxx" articles). ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are deletion arguments. Did you instead mean to say this information is unverifiable rather than merely presently lacking stated sources? postdlf (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is unverifiable. ... discospinster _talk 23:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments for deletion are not actually reasons to delete. Bacchiad (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as typical list covered by WP:CSC #2 #1. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strong case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Complete absence of references reflects absence of coverage in reliable sources, no indication as to notability, and no verification that any of the list entries in fact belong on the list. CSC#2 does not seem to apply for two reasons. First #2 addresses lists where entries fail notability criteria, not the case in this article. Second, ignoring the first reason, #2 suggest entries more likely belong in the parent article. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I stated the wrong one. I fixed my !vote above to properly state #1 which does clearly apply here given that every entry already meets WP:GNG due to having a properly sourced article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:22, 28 January 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. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EM simulation software[edit]

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

The page contains no encyclopedic content and is uninformative, with no clear potential for improvement. A complete rewrite may be possible if sufficient information and sources could be obtained. MopSeeker (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Software comparison pages are relatively common on wikipedia (Category:Software comparisons has over 150 articles). When all of the software compared have individual pages/ are independently notable, as is the case here, such comparisons can be useful and encyclopedic.Dialectric (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In my opinion, this does contain encyclopedic content and is helpful to readers who are interested in this type of topic. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is to be kept, then it may be best to move it to a name that indicates its nature as a comparison, and add more software to the comparison. The original page title may then be used for an article describing the type of software. MopSeeker (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the rename/move, and can make that change if the afd closes as keep.Dialectric (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Diamond (Musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice review by Stereogum here. FACT is also a good source, link here. Earflaps (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has picked up some more sourcing. Usually I am in favour of deletion with musicians but I give her a pass in notablity. Fylbecatulous talk 01:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm open to userfication if someone wants to put in some work toward refactoring this as George Beach (chess) j⚛e decker ^talk 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macclesfield Chess Club[edit]

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

This is a local, amateur chess club that fails WP:ORG. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are about the founder, and don't discuss the actual club. Even the article's author says in the talk page that "I now realise that a page about a particular club is not really appropriate to Wikipedia." Tavix | Talk 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The club meets once a week for only part of the year. Enough said. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local club that wouldn't seem to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "I now realise that a page about a particular club is not really appropriate to Wikipedia." That depends on the club. The Marshall Chess Club and the Manhattan Chess Club are definitely notable, at least from a chess point of view. So far I've only found primary sources for Macclesfield chess club, but I'm withholding judgement for now. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - The thing that inclines me to keep it is that it is well researched and cites sources. This is not a "garage band" article. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources cited don't relate to the club, per se, they relate to Dr George Beach. The article is effectively a biography of George Beach, presented as an article about the club he founded. I'm not convinced either is notable but with regard to the club itself, WP:ORGDEPTH still applies. It wouldn't inherit notability from him even if he were notable. But I certainly agree that such clubs can be notable if they meet that guideline. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well from the point of view of a chess player, there's some great stuff here. This is information worth preserving. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there would be great stuff worth keeping if this club is notable. Read WP:ORG (especially WP:ORGDEPTH) for more information as to why this club isn't notable. If you are able to find independent, reliable sources to back up all this information, then we shouldn't have a problem keeping it somewhere. Tavix | Talk 15:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources, I'd be more inclined to move to George Beach (chess) than keep an article about a non-notable club. We could preserve 90% of the content that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Mr. Beach is notable though? Two of the sources are his obituary, and the other one is from a book that I can't verify. Tavix | Talk 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search for that article title brings up a couple of other sources. The obituaries are a good start. I'm not saying it's a done deal, I'm just saying that would be better than keeping the club article. I still think it should be deleted. We'd probably end up back here, so I'm not sure there's a lot of long-term value. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage of this club in reliable sources, only trivial mentions. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7 and a little WP:IAR. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaq Dup[edit]

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

non notable WP:MUSIC Deunanknute (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a BLP with zero references. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - I've tagged it as such although I have a feeling it's gonna be declined, No sources listed and can't find any shred of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerkwater[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as there is very little coverage of this band in reliable independent sources. Everymorning talk 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as record release is verifiable but insufficient coverage exists to satisfy notability standards. - Dravecky (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of notability fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huion (company)[edit]

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

non-notable company per WP:ORG Deunanknute (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does seem promotional, Found no evidence of notability so fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overt promotional list/product page. Could only find passing mentions in third party sources in G-News. All else is primary sources/product pages. Jppcap (talk) 03:50, 4 February 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.