Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 13 (Mon) May 12 (Sun) May 11 (Sat) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 27 July	29 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Random! Cartoons. --MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Infinite Goliath[edit]

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

Not Notable. No sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as failing WP:N. The nominator may wish to read WP:NRVE and understand that simply being unsourced is not a valid deletion rationale, but yes a lack of WP:GNG is. That stated, I have added sources enough so that this might be at least mentioned in other places even if not meriting a separate article. So okay with a redirect. Cheers Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Random! Cartoons which already mentions the short and some key informations about it. Cavarrone 06:26, 29 July 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 result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wilde (footballer)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As I understand it then Welsh Premier League is not fully professional and Chester City dropped out the League sometime back. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin N. Hamilton[edit]

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (only source that covers her in-depth is a publication she writes for). Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:FILMMAKER #4 with significant critical attention devoted to her works in The New York Times, Washington Post, and Clarion-Ledger. She also won a regional Emmy, a Gracie Award, and awards from the National Association of Black Journalists. I'm also finding significant coverage for her in some paywalled sources. [1] gobonobo ⁺ ^c 23:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:FILMMAKER #4b and #4c. #4b states "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", and her film has opened the March on Washington Film Festival as covered in the The New York Times, Washington Post, and Clarion-Ledger and will be screening at the Martha's Vineyard Film Festival, and NYC Independent Film Festival. Also, the Library of Congress American Folklife Center has included her film in its exhibition, Many Paths to Freedom: Looking Back, Looking Ahead at the Long Civil Rights Movement. #4c states "has won significant critical attention" and the media links above (as stated above by user:gobonobo) illustrate that point. She also has received significant coverage in other major publications such as the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Additionally, Ms. Hamilton is being interviewed by well-known NPR host Michel Martin at the Hill Center. Finally, in addition to the awards she won which were cited above by user:gobonobo, she was also nominated for an additional regional Emmy and NABJ Salute to Excellence Award. Techtacular (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probable delete I take the Nom's point. Hamilton has not been the subject of anything like a profile or in-depth coverage that I can see. I did not search for her, not my usual practice, because in this case a near-SPA has been so diligent assembling sources that I looked at them instead. The claim here is that Hamilton made a film that carries her past WP:FILMMAKER #4b and #4c. Support for this is pretty marginal. For one thing, it's a "short" film. For another, Her film is about Fannie Lou Hamer. It was mentioned in a number of articles, but some of these are pretty slender reeds upon which to support notability. For example, the film was shown at film festival called the "March on Washington Film Festival". The WaPo in it's article about the festival, wrote: "a new short film about Hamer, “This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer,”" [2], and The Clarion-Ledger in Hamer's home town in its write-up of the festival said only: "included a showing of Robin Hamilton’s documentary “This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer.”" [3]. I'm just not seeing anything significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have added more citations, including the Boston Globe and Boston Herald as mentioned above (and now another two Globe articles and an additional Herald article on top), NPR's Michel Martin interview, a radio interview of Hamilton on WPFW (go to 2:09 of the 7/19 Spirit of Jazz episode), and a feature story on Hamilton and the film by All Digitocracy. But I would respectfully request the nominator and the probable dissenter [[user::E.M.Gregory]] to reconsider their position, as no one has disputed WP:FILMMAKER #4b which states "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." Her inclusion in the Library of Congress exhibition certainly qualifies. And then there are the three film festivals. The NYTimes, WaPo, Washington Informer, et al. all covered the March on Washington Film Festival, showing the festival is a significant exhibition. Her film opened the March on Washington Film Festival, which is a huge honor in the film festival world and shows it was substantial part of the exhibition. Also, I believe you are downplaying the significant media coverage. In the coverage of the film festival listed above, Hamilton's film is either the only film mentioned or the featured film in the article. The entire first four paragraphs of the New York Times article are exclusively about people going to see the film and the film itself:

START OF NYT QUOTE:"WASHINGTON — Septuagenarians from the era of the civil rights movement slowly climbed the steps of Metropolitan A.M.E. church here, some receiving kisses on the cheek from the young man at the door. They mingled with other generations — throngs of government workers, young law students inspired by recent protests, and even a few lesser-known legends of that struggle.

They gathered for the opening of the March on Washington Film Festival, which focuses largely on the midcentury struggle for civil rights and is intended as much to kindle activism as to showcase new films. The festival began Wednesday at the church with the new documentary “This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer,” directed by Robin N. Hamilton.

Ms. Hamer came to prominence at the 1964 Democratic National Convention and in the film discusses her battles in Mississippi for simple acts of justice; being beaten while in police custody because she had been educating black voters about their rights; and “test questions,” including one about the number of bubbles a soap bar produces, used as barriers to voter registration.

In her remarks at that convention, she said: “Is this America? The land of the free and the home of the brave?” Her words took on extra resonance at this, the third year of the festival, after the recent deaths of unarmed black people in encounters with the police, and the killings at a church in Charleston, S.C." END OF NYT QUOTE.

The WaPo article starts the first several paragraphs by talking about the festival, and then moves into talking about the film and the panel that included Hamilton and other people featured in the film and Hamilton and her film by far receive the more coverage in the article than any other part of the film festival:

START OF WaPo QUOTE:"In addition to a new short film about Hamer, “This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer,” Wednesday’s event included a panel with filmmaker Robin Hamilton, along with those featured in the film: Vergie Hamer Faulkner, Hamer’s daughter (Hamer, who died in 1977, had been sterilized without her knowledge), recalled being 9 and witnessing the start of her mother’s activism. She also spoke about the threats on Hamer’s life.

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District’s delegate to Congress, recounted her efforts to get Hamer and activist Lawrence Guyot out of a Winona, Miss., jail after brutal beatings. Hamer was viciously beaten and nearly killed. Guyot, Norton said, had been beaten and was left naked; Norton had to wait for him to find something to cover himself. She was a second-year Yale law student at the time and, like Hamer and Guyot, worked with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

Norton told a rapt audience at the Metropolitan AME Church in downtown Washington about seeing Hamer’s fresh bruises.

“There’s nobody I can compare her with,” she said.

Along with Hamilton and Faulkner, other panel participants were SNCC alum Dorie Ladner; the Rev. Ed King, a white activist who worked with Hamer in the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party; and longtime activist, educator and Mississippi politician Leslie McLemore."END OF WaPo QUOTE.

These festivals are all pretty big deals--for instance, HBO is very active in the Martha's Vineyard one. And you only need to think one (Library of Congress, or the 3 festivals) of these is "significant" in order for Hamilton to qualify. Regarding #4c states "has won significant critical attention" If the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Clarion Ledger, the Shreveport Times, and the Washington Informer don't move you, then for WP:JOURNALIST #4c "has won significant critical attention" I hope the Emmy Award, the Gracie Award, and the two NABJ Salute to Excellence Awards do move you. These are notable awards in journalism. BTW, the Shreveport Times also picked up the Clarion-Ledger article. With all respect, I do ask you to consider these points. Much thanks! Techtacular (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per gobonobo's comments above. JSFarman (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gobonobo and Techtacular. References currently in article (July 31) confirm subject meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was asked to revisit this by SPA Techtacular. The problem I'm having with it is that there are no actual reviews of this short documentary, and the multitudinous new sources are mere mentions of Hamilton or of the film; the only profile is in a non-bluelinked online publication All Digitocracy. Everything else appears to be a mere mention of her, or her film. She is, certainly , a TV reporter who is known in Boston; but that is usually not enough to pass GNG without a profile. Usually The NYTimes piece [4], which I read before making my previous comment (I did do a brief search, just not thorough since the SPA appeared to have culled so many very minor ones), consists of: "The festival began Wednesday at the church with the new documentary “This Little Light of Mine: The Legacy of Fannie Lou Hamer,” directed by Robin N. Hamilton." followed by material about the Movement and mentions of the other films, we don't get anything more about this film until the final paragraph: "When Ms. Hamer asked her famous question on film, some in the audience dabbed at tears. But later, wrinkled hands clapped backs and audience members rose in the pews, wrapped their arms around their seatmates and swayed to a joyous rendition of “This Little Light of Mine,” making the room, for a moment, feel weightless." That, as far as I can see, is the closest this film comes to a review. I am unclear where User:Gobonobo is seeing a review, "critical attention" as per WP:FILMMAKER: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The argument made by the SPA is that one or all of these film festivals qualify her under 4b. I suppose it comes down to whether these festivals are sufficiently "notable". I don't edit of come to AFD much on films. So I'll leave this to those who do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment First, I added another link, Hamilton is being interviewed today on the Kojo Nnamdi Show, and NPR has the podcasts after they air. I will link to NPR podcast when it is available. I did ask you to revisit, hoping for an honest debate, but the user's arguments have changed. The first four paragraphs of the NYTimes article specifically talk about Hamilton, the film and what is in the film (the way I read the article is that the description of Hamer's work at the Convention and being beaten by police is in the film). Also, the user above doesn't address the awards. I agree with your conclusion on 4b, and I've already argued above that Library of Congress exhibition is notable (as are the festivals), so I won't rehash. However, the most disappointing part of this is that you repeatedly refer to me as a SPA, which I am not. But even if I was, that would be irrelevant to this debate. I've kept my comments to the merit of the debate and will continue to do so. Techtacular (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Clinton Controversies[edit]

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

Articles for Creation needs to be scrutinized if this is the kind of drek being accepted these days. This is one large laundry list of "criticisms" and "controversies" that have been thrown at Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton over the years, most of the salient ones are already covered i nthe main articles or sub-articles. One single-purpose account seeks to synthesize all the disparate & sundry right-wing talking points, conspiracy theories, and whatnot into an overreaching grand conspiracy of "The Clintons" plural as a monolithic, singular entity. All in all, a large coatrack to allege what the fringes of conservative American politics have wanted to allege for years, the dreaded "Clinton Conspiracy". Hell, the article title alone and what it begins with should inform one on what shaky ground the material is on here. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Textbook WP:COATRACK, WP:NOT, you name it. We don't have an Alleged Bush Controversies, an Alleged Nixon Controversies, an Alleged Roosevelt Controversies or an Alleged Lincoln Controversies either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: WP:COATRACK is not really a valid problem here, as responses are included from the Clinton's, and other sources, disputing those issues that have been disputed; others, of course, have been publicly admitted to by the Clinton's under oath, or otherwise. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a compilation of partisan hitjobs and has no place on Wikipedia. I would be saying the same for any of the above articles, all of which could theoretically be written. We aren't a compendium of conspiracy theories, guilt-by-association smear tactics and outright falsehoods about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section I removed neatly demonstrates all the problems with this article. It went on at length about one of Hillary Clinton's aides, noted that she had been employed in the State Department by Hillary, and that she was married to someone who did something untoward. Absolutely none of that is an "alleged Clinton controversy," even if such a thing were to exist. There were literally half a dozen citations to articles about her husband's sexting misdeeds, which has absolutely nothing to do with either Abedin or the Clintons, making it a twice-removed guilt-by-association smear, and I have removed it. This article quite simply does not belong on the encyclopedia. There may be a place to accumulate all the partisan attacks on one candidate or the other; Wikipedia should not be that place, lest we wind up with Alleged Trump Controversies, Alleged Cruz Controversies, Alleged Walker Controversies and so on and so forth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - There are no comparable articles for other past presidents. WP:COAT problems as well. Alexander Levian (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderLevian: Hardly meets the WP:COATRACK test, as opposing views are included vis-a-vis every controversy, and responses from the Clinton people disputing those that they have disputed. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:COATRACK; throwing "Alleged" into an article title is pretty much thumbing your nose at every single policy we have to prevent these obnoxious articles from taking root here. Also questioning how anyone could accept an AfC request at like this at all here. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Doesn't really meet the WP:COATRACK test, as opposing views are included vis-a-vis every controversy, and responses from the Clinton people countering those that they have taken issue with; some of the allegations made they have admitted to. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everything here has an alternate POV, and I wouldn't expect it to either. Plus innocent people are dragged in here just to attack them for how they wish to pursue charity (Petra Němcová can do whatever she wants with her money); this just completely reads as something you'd read on a fringe wiki and beyond that, is really poorly written (summary of the article in the open; we have tables of contents for that reason, along with just paraphrases of ledes in existing 'see also's). Please read the AfD for the near-equivalent Allegations of Bias in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article; we simply don't write hit pieces about subjects here, period, and I stand by my comments that getting this through AfC is why that process needs a serious re-examination if editors there let items like this get through. Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this really made it past Articles for Creation? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Yes. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor JR:, I wondered not only for the content but for the junk at the top, with the symbols, etc. Why is there a personal message from anyone at the top of an article? This is OK for a draft, not a legit article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL. The article is a WP:POVFORK of several other articles and serves no apparent purpose other than to advance a point of view that the Clinton's are mired in controversy.- Mr X 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Are you suggesting that they are not? (i.e., mired in contorversy). Check out the NYT or the Washington Post, or virtually any recent television news broadcast in the U.S. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm stating it outright. I have no idea why you think providing links to our articles about two newspapers would be helpful.- Mr X 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to list format i.e. List of Bushisms or break off into more dedicated space like George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies . --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: A list format or navigation list might be acceptable, as an alternative, although don't really see much in the was of any valid reasons articulated here for deletion of article, other than to meet the agenda or particular bias of those proposing deletion. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushisms article (which is really low-grade quality IMO, this isn't Cracked.com) is a chronicle of his rhetorical butcherings, not controversies. Much of what is listed here already have their own standalone articles, while some of it is outright fraudulent, e.g. the header "Alleged "Enemies List" which make sit look like there is an actual article about it, but rather the "main article" link points to a partisan book, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Tarc (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with all the different articles. If there is enough, a navigation list is the normal course per WP:LIST. It shouldn't a coatrack of material that isn't notable though. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:NOT, WP:BLPCRIME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 01:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. Clearly runs afoul of WP:COATRACK and likely WP:BLP.--JayJasper (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJasper: WP:COATRACK is not really a valid problem here, as responses are included from the Clinton's, and other sources, disputing those issues that have been disputed; others, of course, have been publicly admitted to by the Clinton's under oath, or otherwise. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - My, my! -- there seem to a few folks not very worried about their POV Freudian slips as advocates for someone or something showing here, in their comments above. This article is not intended to provide any particular POV, or to present a detailed or exhaustive discussions on the various alleged incidents and matters included. It is intended as a simple research-tool compendium of Clinton controversies, interest in which having significantly resurfaced recently in light of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy for the presidency. It was prepared, and accepted for creation, to assist Wikipedia users and researchers in locating sources for more comprehensive discussions of a particular issue in this regard. Only brief discussions are provided in this entry for each topic, along with various references and external links, and links to Wikipedia Main Article entries, to facilitate user access for those seeking more comprehensive treatment(s), and opposing points of view on the respective matters. Additionally, I might remind you that before leaping to submitting an article for deletion just because one may not like it perhaps, or based on any personal biases on the subject, Wikipedia users are asked by Wikipedia policy to consider whether a more efficient alternative might be appropriate (although, granted, that requires some work and constructive effort). Many perceived problems (such as a number of those thrown out as rationale for deletion above) do not warrant deletion. And, if a user such as User:Tarc determines that an article needs improvement, or has what that user perceives as potential POV problems, Wikipedia policy encourages that you be bold, and fix the problem, or tag sentences or sections of the article appropriately, not to simply submit it, or argue for its proposed deletion.Professor JR (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around since 2006, but you act like you are new on Wikipedia. I don't see a single person who thinks this article is acceptable. Are you not familiar with the guidelines at WP:BLP? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/Professor JR shows a creation date of 26 May 2015. Sure acts like someone who has been around the block a few times, though. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a project-wide attention given to U.S. presidential candidates in 2007, which viewed separate, catch-all "controversies" pages and sections as a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. All of these were gotten rid of, Democrat Republican or otherwise, by merging any such sourced material into the relevant biographical sections they belong in. Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 2#Status of "controversies" pages. Since then the same has been done when needed for 2012 and 2016 presidential candidates. This practice has made these articles better and this no time to be going backward. Additionally this particular article is in violation of WP:BLP's prohibition of guilt by association. It assumes that the supposed sins of one Clinton should always be visited on the other. And it's especially a BLP violation for other people mentioned – for example the whole paragraph and photo about Cheryl Mills – what scandals is she accused of? She's worked for the Clintons in several settings and she represented Bill during his impeachment trial. Well, she's a lawyer and that's what lawyers do, they represent people in legal proceedings. Professor JR's justification that this article is needed as a "research tool" is a novel theory but one that does not hold water; WP articles are researched from solid, mainstream published sources, not from each other. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a compilation that has no basis as an independent article. The material might belong in other articles, but not as an independent article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A big no-no. Clear violation of WP:COAT, WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME, to name a few. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete - as a sometime AFC reviewer I am astonished that this BLP nightmare was ever "approved". It needs to be nuked now. ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Just the word alleged should have been enough for it not to have made it on to mainspace (IMO). But then again some pages seem to escape any sort of review procedure! This is not a gossip rag. Eagleash (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the reviewer, I felt it necessary to post this response for reference that I already gave on my talk page: Not to defend my decision (as I see now it was an egregious error) but instead to explain it...1) It was incredibly biased before and edits were made, I think seeing such a large improvement tricked my mind into thinking it was acceptable 2) If it did have continuing issues it would be caught by other editors and sent to AfD (the system worked fwiw). 3) Edits would be made other editors to counter or defend accusations in time. I did believe there was worth for convenience of research to compile the controversies, but obviously there was a better way to go about it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Coatrack, and for all of the reasons others have discussed above. Seems to be a clear consensus here, I'd advocate speedy-ing this pronto. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:COAT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and others. This page looks like it was set up as a go-to reference for the Republican candidates in the 2016 election to keep their hit points straight. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COAT, and WP:BLUDGEON. Also, suggest some review of contributions here: Special:Contributions/Professor_JR JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt add WP:SPECULATION to the numerous other policies and guidelines already mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff that exists

Relocated to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies#Other stuff that exists Tarc (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dovydas Virkšas[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) 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sputnik, as you can see i clearly put a reference where it states that he has played in the europa league, and if that isnt prestige enough league for you then i guess nothing is. DM Trix

Europa League appearances only confer notability if they were in the competition proper (i.e. not in qualifying) or in a match between to clubs that play in one of the fully professional leagues listed here. Neither is the case for his appearances in the competition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sir Sputnik, so your saying that the Lithuanian League is not counted as "professional"? that's just an insult to the league and its country...

DM Trix — Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why don't you just redirect to his current team, AS Saint-Étienne? I don't understand the rush to deletion for these articles that will most likely be recreated within the next year and are plausible search terms. They should be made into redirects so the articles can easily be restored as soon as they do play. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long standing consensus against applying WP:NFOOTBALL in anticipation of future appearances, and with good reason. The claim that a footballer will play in the future is inherently unverifiable, making it a very poor claim to notability. We don't generally redirect un-notable footballers to their club's page, since club affiliation is far too transient, and an individual player is generally not a sub-topic of the club for which he plays. Finally, since deleted article can be restored at the click of a button, the ease of restoration argument doesn't really hold up. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles cannot be restored at a click of the button - they require contacting an admin to restore. On the other hand, restoring a redirect to its own article can be done at the click of a button by anyone. Redirects must merely be plausible, not constantly up to date. Just redirect and avoid the whole AfD debate entirely. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The redirect request above makes no sense, this player will almost certainly not be associated with this club for his whole career, so the redirect would be needed temporarily at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per comments above. Coverage is very sparse, with pretty much all of it in minor or non-reputable sources. The only thing that appears to have put him in the minor news is a rumored transfer, but until any facts emerge about that, it's just a rumor. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I agree that the redirect wouldn't work well here, especially given the rumors that he's transferring imminently. ~ Rob^Talk 23:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lita Fontaine[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, making no strong claim of notability that would satisfy WP:ARTIST and resting entirely on primary and user-generated content sources except for a single news article by the CBC — one reliable source, however, is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. As always, an artist does not get an automatic entitlement to keep a Wikipedia article just because she exists. Delete unless the sourcing and content can be majorly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now with no good move target and my searches found nothing particularly substantial here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is fairly extensive coverage here, some coverage here (a paragraph), a mention here, a small paragraph here, and a few more mentions in the Winnipeg Free Press (which I didn't look at, since it requires a log-in and submitting email address). If the closing admin decides to keep it, write something on my talk page and I'll try to fix up this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in that article is notable. Looks like a resume of name, education, employment. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. This is a non-administator closure; per policy, such closures are subject to administrative review and may be reverted. That said, the subject's notability is clearly established, and an obvious consensus has been reached. Furthermore, this consensus is informed by a plentitude of sources and accurately reflects WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. North of Eden (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am loath to change this to "speedy keep" following closure as keep, but reviewing admins should take note of these discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict with editors in RfC, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Noack, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Castel. North of Eden (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Oswald[edit]

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

Notability not established. Sang at a non-notable event and with a non-notable group. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded Bach's Mass in B minor with Thomas Hengelbrock. Kindly withdraw this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable secondary source for that claim? Jcmcc (Talk) 21:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviosly. Kindly consider next time to at least check how many links there are already for the subject, - would spare us time,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps: important recording, added to table, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AllMusic shows he has a considerable discography. A google books search reveals a multiplicity of sources where he is mentioned, including reviews of his performances. Unfortunately almost all of these are in snippet view and cannot be viewed in entirety. Also, it is likely there are many more German sources available on this subject than English language sources. In short, I believe he meets criteria 5 and 6 based on his discography alone, and could very well meet more with a bit of digging among German language publications and access to non-snippet views in the google books search.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As User:4meter4 points out, there are many mentions in books. The discography is extensive. Apart from the cited source, others discuss the subject in some depth. [5][6] The nominator has a history of proposing deletion before checking for notability. Of their deletion submissions from February to May this year, 6 were accepted and 7 rejected. Given the disruptive impact of unjustified AfD's, particularly on new editors, a ban on further AfD submissions by User:Jcmcc450 may be appropriate. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a pattern at AFD for User:Jcmcc450 I agree with your concern. This is an obviously notable subject that a quick internet search would have made apparent to any editor. It's obvious that WP:BEFORE was not followed. I would suggest a temporary ban over a permanent one. Are you planning on bring this up at WP:ANI User:Aymatth2?4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Not yet. This can be taken as a warning to User:Jcmcc450. If there is no improvement, it can go to ANI. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by 4meter4 and Aymatth2. Cavarrone 14:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability criterion 2B. Consult Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict with editors in RfC and the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Oswald. This is a non-administrator closure; per policy, such closures are subject to administrative review and may be reverted. North of Eden (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Noack[edit]

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

Notability is not established. The closest to notability would be winning first prize at a non-notable event. Which is intrinsically not notable. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcmcc450: You wouldn't know notability if it leaped up and bit you on the arse!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia. Jcmcc (Talk) 21:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please refrain from trolling and sockpuppeteering!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator does not appear to have done a basic web search before proposing deletion. "Sebastian Noack, internationally renowned as a concert and oratory baritone singer" indicates notability. Various other sites give in-depth coverage [7][8][9][10] etc. Several books mention the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nominator wouldn't know notability if it leaped up and bit him on the arse. Plenty of decent sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Aymatth2. Further, a google books search reveals close to 300 sources that mention this subject, some of them in considerable detail. It's obvious WP:Before was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tax information exchange software[edit]

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

No Reliable sources. Original research. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability criterion 2B. Consult Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflict with editors in RfC and the rationales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermann Oswald and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Noack. This is a non-administrator closure; per policy, such closures are subject to administrative review and may be reverted. North of Eden (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Castel[edit]

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

No notability is established. No works are mentioned. No sources except one that proves of existence only. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that search is less than persuasive. The 9th entry says that this name is a pseudonym.[11] Evon on the first page of the search not every item is about her. After the first page of the search, none of the hits are about her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had a moment to come back to this, User:Dr. Blofeld, saw that you wrote it. So you can probably add enough persuasive detail, I imagine you must know her work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Story Productions[edit]

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

Non notable production house. Variation 25.2 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non notable production house, Burn and salt.Ireneshih (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable production house, major productions, notable producers and talent..SamPeters123 (talk) 12:144, 31 July 2015 (UTC)— SamPeters123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notability is determined by reliable sources, the article currently lacks that requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sam is Goodstory's changed name as was requested of him/her. As Goodstory he/she has been a low activity editor in good standing for over 9 years. It was only the creation of this article that brought the WP:UAA & WP:COI issues to light. Looking at the entirety of his/her contributions the SPA tag is undeserved. Bazj (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only sources are IMDB, blogs, press releases, but nothing substantial that shows any notability whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Bazj (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Alani[edit]

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

An actor and screenwriter. Only acted in short films. Refs in articles only mention him in one sentence. Unable to find refs except for social media. Book he wrote is self-published. Article being edited by user "Jay Alani". Bgwhite (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't source it and assume that it is self-promotion by SPA. At best, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely SPA accounts cause for vanity and self promotion. Fails WP:GNG. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3; creator admits article is a hoax. Creator/nominator also blocked indefinitely under WP:NOTHERE. Krakatoa Katie 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project Alphaism[edit]

Project Alphaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Article about internet trolls. Please discuss before deletion. EdytaGocek (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references, does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, it's very odd for an article's creator to propose its deletion. Are you not sure whether the article should be here, and want the opinion of others? ubiquity (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete If the only author of an article wants it deleted, shouldn't that count as WP:CSD#G7? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not speedy. Someone else marked it as a speedy before, and I brought the article back and marked it as a discussed deletion. I don't like people with My article I spent 2 hours creating, and they read it for 5 seconds and decide it should be immediately deleted. That's just not right. So I respectfully put it in discussion. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)— EdytaGocek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @EdytaGocek: Your article was deleted the first time based on WP:CSD#G7 (author-requested deletion). Did you delete all of the page contents? That is generally taken as a sign that the article should be deleted. In this case, you have nominated the page for deletion, when no one else had yet tagged it for deletion. You are seriously complicating matters here. Also, do not remove other users' comments from this discussion page. Make your own comments, but leave others' comments intact. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I didn't mean to delete your comment! EdytaGocek (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (new rationale): Given that the author has indicated they do not wish the article deleted, WP:CSD#G7 does not apply. However, WP:CSD#A7 does, as this is still just a non-notable group of internet trolls. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should an article that someone spent so much time on be speedied? EdytaGocek (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @EdytaGocek: I'm sorry if you feel your efforts have been wasted, but Wikipedia does have criteria for inclusion: not every thing that exists gets to be included at Wikipedia. Since you appear also to be a member of this self-identified group of Internet trolls, might I suggest that you also look at the conflict of interest and vandalism policies? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The person leading the group is a female from Poland, believed actually to be named Edyta, however her actual surname is unknown." So furthermore, not necessarily. EdytaGocek (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7 looks like it applies here. The lack of references and lack of search results make this A7 at best, G3 at worst. Nthep (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ((db-club)) has been applied to the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7, article makes no attempt to assert any significance or provide any sources to confirm its existence. Some concern that as a story written by self-confessed "internet trolls" mentioning various people by their full names, it could be an oblique attack page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:McGeddon and @everyone else too, Their full names were entirely made up by anonymous users, as the article even says itself. How would I be attacking anyone? Edyta Gocek and (Redacted), all these are nothing more than fictional characters. EdytaGocek (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, with the administrator taking their pick of several relevant criteria. A7 clearly applies and would be my first choice. Also, regardless of whether this could be deemed an attack page (as might be the case if the "fiction" element were a sham for disparagement), there are certainly BLP concerns regarding the people on whom the characters are based and/or those authoring the fiction. The BLP concerns aren't necessary to qualify this for speedy deletion, but they present a strong argument as to why that qualifying speedy deletion should be carried out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that I am not really associated with the PZU. Just to let you know, that is also just a fictional part of the story. Does that count as a company attack?

"Edyta comes from a rich family, one related to the owner of PZU, an insurance company that is one of the largest financial institutions in all of Poland. Because of this, Edyta owns her own small house and lives alone, and pays her bills without much support from her parents or other people." EdytaGocek (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EdytaGocek Instead of all these denials about things; why, when everyone else says this isn't a notable topic and is unreferenced aren't you addressing the issues that if addressed properly would save the article? Nthep (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me that? EdytaGocek (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the one who created the article and would like it to remain but don't seem bothered to do anything about it. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because how on earth am I going to save this article? I know Wikipedia, this article will definitely get deleted. There are literally no internet sources at all whatsoever, the users didn't go anywhere outside of the chat sites and chat apps, so there's no reason to even keep this article. I just wanted there to be a discussion, cuz that's at least fair, right? EdytaGocek (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knew from the start that a Wikipedia article about this wouldn't apply, so I thought that if I made the article extremely long that it would take a couple years for people to finally notice, therefore our organization would have its own article without even having any sources. Unfortunately it seems you can't beat Wikipedia, someone noticed. You win, delete. EdytaGocek (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that I succeeded in dragging out a 2-3 hour discussion about something that was completely useless, I just wasted 2-3 hours of people's time. EdytaGocek (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bravo, Edtya. You successfully trolled us about trolling. Except that if you will add up the time it took to write these responses, I think you will find that you wasted no more than a few minutes of any one person's time, excepting yourself. I totally agree you wasted 2-3 hours of your OWN time, even more if one includes the 2 hours you claim it took you to write the article. I hope you enjoyed it all. ubiquity (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Colier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I was pruning references to self-published sources when I happened upon this article. It was riddled with WP:REFSPAM and when that was removed, only one source remains, a news clipping naming him as one of several recipients of a small grant from Panasonic, not in itself a claim of notability. This is either an example of very clever resume-padding or a genuinely notable subject with an unusually badly-sources article. The article was written by a WP:SPA and the majority of substantive contributions are from two others of the same ilk. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete Are there any reliable sources on Colier? Searches on his name come up empty. So I tried one of the listed novels. "The Bosphorous Hug" listed as, "2000 (novel)". Nothing. So I fixed the article's apparant misspelling spelling to "The Bosphorus Hug" Trurns out "the "Bosphorus hug" may once have been a dance fad. No trace of the novel. Searched another novel "Fleur de Peau" Still nothing. Beginning to think article was a hoax when I tried a film, "Of Wanderlust." IMDB came through [12]. A 17 min. film with a budget of $5,000. I guess he's real [13]. I particularly like the IMDB description of his 2012 film, "My Last Play," ""Dispirited after a 32-year failed career, broken playwright, Ed Schmidt, calls it quit....." [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete not in frWP. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: was briefly in fr.wikipedia but speedy-deleted for not being written in French, the irony of it. I couldn't find significant coverage in English or French. Vrac (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts in Tibetan culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ghosts in Tibetan culture

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

~~Delete~~ - Merge to Preta. Atleast 3 articles, probably more, cover the same material. See Ghost, Preta and Gyalpo. This article is poorly sourced as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hungry ghost. Nevertheless, "Ghosts in Tibetan culture" might be used as an umbrella-article, which directs to the various articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are not 4 articles covering the same material, as for example United States Investigations Services and USIS (company) were before the merge. Instead they are 4 articles covering different aspects of a topic, like World War II, Air warfare of World War II, and Pacific War are 3 articles all covering different aspects of WWII. Ghost talks about ghosts generally, describing the concept of a ghost both in history and modern times in many different cultures throughout the world. Ghosts in Tibetan culture, the particular article you're wanting to delete, goes (or should - I admit it needs work) into more detail about the specific concepts and superstitions that are unique to the Tibetan concept of ghosts. Preta and Gyalpo spirits are different types of ghosts in Tibetan mythology, just as Lion and Tiger are different types of cat - yet you wouldn't think we should roll them all into Felidae. Each article addresses a unique topic, although there is naturally some overlap. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gyalpos are a subcategory of pretas. Maybe you can reconsider your vote.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the respective articles: "gyalpo spirits . . . are 'the spirits of evil kings or of high lamas who have failed their vows.'". "Pretas are believed to have been false, corrupted, compulsive, deceitful, jealous or greedy people in a previous life." It doesn't seem to be 2 words for the same thing; although I can see how they would be a subcategory of Pretas. To go back to the cat analogy; lions, tigers, and domestic cats are all subtypes of Felines, but within Tiger you have Siberian tiger, Bengal tiger, and several other tiger subspecies. My point stands. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: But Pretas, Hungry ghosts and Ghosts in Tibetan culture are all the same thing and the same categorical level. It would be like having 3 Felidae articles.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Preta. Not notable separate from ghost/preta. Ogress _smash! 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With arguments for deletion, keeping and merger, currently shows no consensus. Giving more time for the discussion to proceed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there have been no further discussion since the relist, one more might be useful... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Belt Express[edit]

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

Non-notability. Sources are too weak to establish this; a sraight to video film is almost per se non-notable as a film. TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- subject of the article appears to meet WP:NFILM. I found abq journal, Hollywood reporter, this review, Latina, film maker magazine to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

STRONG Keep and continue cleaning up per it easily meeting WP:NF through the multiple independent reliable sources available. It also won a few awards which need inclusion and citation. And nominator... had you looked first you might have found the multiple available sources and realized that with its multiple festival screenings since June of 2014, it is not exactly "direct-to-video". It may be "eventually-to-video", but that is not the same thing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NRVE, which requires "the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." That's why we have WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 21:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:---TheLongTone may want to withdraw their nomination since the subject notability has been established. Editors often do this at times to avoid unnecessary wasting of time on irrelevant discussion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 23:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiz Lee[edit]

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

I don't think the Feminist porn Award ( according to its wiki page organised by a adult store - The ceremony was originally conceived of and coordinated by former store manager Chanelle Gallant, and it has been organized by current store manager Alison Lee since 2008.) is sufficiently notable to overcome the lack of decent reliable sourcing. Fails PORNBIO (IMO) and GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as much as I regret lending my support to an article about someone whose best achievement is winning a butt plug-shaped award, subject meets GNG. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until I see proof positive that a "butt plug-shaped award" qualifies as a "well-known and significant industry award", I must disagree with my distinguished colleagues. I do not think that the relatively high standards of WP:PORNBIO are met.--Rpclod (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rpclod, meeting WP:GNG is way more significant in terms of notability than winning a Feminist Porn Award. Cavarrone 05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as obviously fails PORNBIO & GNG, As far as I know Winning a butt-plug shaped award isn't really notable. –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided below - They're not perfect I'll admit but notability's there. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spartaz's sound argument and per WP:TNT. Wikimandia's keep, above, is well-reasoned, but there is no relevant content in the article and both the book and film discussed in those sources remain as yet unreleased. I believe it's a bad idea to maintain an inadequate, borderline promotional BLP with essentially no content relating to its subject's actual significance/potential notability. I'm also a bit leery about accepting notability based on a not-yet-published book by a not-yet-published author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not extreme in this position by any means but i think it's ludicrous lesbian and gay pornography performers are being held to standards of not receiving any mainly heterosexual porn awards (xbiz/avn) (the awards that AVN/XBIZ do put queer performers in "All girl/girl" are regarded as minor). There is a bias there. GuzzyG (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There's certainly a problem here, but it's with the ridiculous privileging of straight porn performers over virtually every other class of performers, gay or straight, and the acceptance of worthless credentials, tinfoil trophies, unreliable sources, and promotional editing. The solution to the problem of ratshit content in one narrow field is not to tolerate even more ratshit in other fields. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per obvious lack of WP:BEFORE by the nominator and per sources by User:Wikimandia (which are just a fraction of what is easily foundable via Google, and do not just cover her book and her film). Comments about the subject failing GNG (by nominator and by User:Davey2010 above) should be ignored as inaccurate (see WP:NRVE: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable", and "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation"). Coverage about Lee dates back to 2009 as a minimum ([20]). I would also point that a pornographic actor/actress who is invited as lecturer and speaker in multiple prestigious academic institutions is beyond doubt notable (see also [21], [22], [23]). Let alone she is also widely cited in several academic essays about pornography (Google Scholar). I disagree about WP:TNT as we use it just for "hopelessly irreparable" articles where "the only solution is to blow it up and start over". TNT applies for unsurmountable problems, eg. copyright violations or no meaningful content, current case is at best a minor WP:UGLY case which just requires a bit of cleanup, improving the sourcing and some expansion. Deletion is not cleanup. Cavarrone 05:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep - she is the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources satisfying notability per wikimandia. It is irrelevant to notability whether films and books discussed has never been released. The focus is on the actual published source and whether there is content to contribute to the article. These sources can expand the article. For example, the Out article features an autobiography excerpt that describes her start and relationship with Syd Blakovich. It describes her opinions on gender issues which relate to her work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've never seen any evidence that the the Feminist Porn Awards have ever qualified as a "well-known or significant industry award". FYI, many of the above-mentioned (on July 19th & 21st) possible references have been added to the article in question here for possible inclusion at a later date. Guy1890 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jiz Lee is a prominent figure in the queer porn genre. They have written and contributed to numerous books and other publications in the genderqueer, feminist, and erotica arenas. Drewmike (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there can't be any doubt that this person is notable, look at all the sources provided above, I suggest the anti-porn warriors take it easy every once in a while. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PORNBIO is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to proving notability. Indeed it's a far from great guideline and frequently contested. Lee meets WP:GNG, a far more reliable and long-established standard that derives directly from Wikipedia policies WP:N and WP:V. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO by being the recipient of a well-known and significant industry award that is not a scene-related/ensemble category. The Feminist Porn Award has enough mainstream media coverage to pass WP:GNG ([24], [25], & [26]) and is therefore well-known/significant. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rebecca", please stop disrupting AFD discussions by misrepresenting the relevant notability guideline. You know perfectly well that passing the GNG does not make an award "well-known" or "significant". The standard is intentionally set higher, both in PORNBIO and the more general ANYBIO. This was made quite clear in the extensive discussions on tightening up PORNBIO standards, and no one disputed that this language was intended to be more restrictive than the prior text, which indicated that notable awards were sufficient. There are scores of discussions which have resulted in deletion of recipients of notable awards, both under PORNBIO and other other criteria. You know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep by a slight margin, according to policy-based arguments presented below. Ultimately BLP1E not applicable, doesn't pass artist-specific notability, but does pass GNG...just. Maybe highlights the need to discuss whether non-notability as an artist should trump GNG, but that is a general not specific discussion to have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhenya Gershman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

This page has been deleted after a previous AfD discussion, and was undeleted three days later, stating that it should be renominated if no new sources appear, see User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jun 2015#deletion of a page: Zhenya Gershman. No edits were made after the undeletion, and here we are again. The subject still fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Kraxler (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kraxler neglected to quote the full review by Kudpung: "Because this was a very close call and because the closer is not obliged to read the article (indeed to do so would possibly invite his /her own opinion to the matter), I will restore the article..." There are more than three required references that show Gershman's clear notability fulfilling Wikipedia standards: Le Monde article, The Jewish Journal, World News RIA Novosti, US News Daily, Arte Al Limite. Kraxler was participating in a previous discussion regarding Zhenya Gershman page and seems to have a personal issue with the subject Zhenya Gershman - is it because she is a woman, Jewish or supports LGBT cause? Jon Deen (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Jon Deen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: User Jon Deen is the creator of this article. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AGF, and avoid arguing ad hominem. I renominated the article because the result of the previous discussion was delete. That's a fact. Or do you disagree? Upon undeletion, Kudpung says: "...without prejudice to it being listed for deletion again if new sources are not added to it that assert notbility." No new sources were added after the undeletion until my renomination. That's a fact. Or do you disagree? We can't have a discussion closed as "delete" while the article was kept. It's that simple. Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Here are some previous really strong arguments in favor of "KEEPING" the article:

~~"I agree she meets GNG based on the links at the article now, and the documentary. Sources repeatedly refer to her as "renowned" User talk:Wikimandia~~

Le Monde, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, and Arteallimite are "rock-solid refs" that provide the "significant coverage" in reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Why do you disagree? Cunard (talk) Jon Deen (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Struck selected out-of-context quotings from previous discussion. The previous discussion is linked as a whole in the box at the top of this page. Also, you can't sign the names of other users. Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer There is a big difference between "signing for others" and "quoting. Obviously Cunard and Wikimandia feel very different from Kraxler and are in favor of keeping this article without doubt. Also, Kraxler keeps ignoring the fact that the editor Kudpung called the previous discussion "a very close call" with majority votes in favor of keeping the article.Jon Deen (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of a link to the user names at the end of the quote looks like they signed it, which they didn't, and it notifies them to look at this page. Under WP:CANVASS it is forbidden to selectively notify users of discussions when it is known that they share your point-of-view. Kraxler (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NEW SOURCE ADDED:

Peter Frank, an art critic for Angeleno Magazine, Huffington Post, and LA Weekly said, “Gershman’s effort evokes not only Whistler’s and Sargent’s, but that from which they took inspiration, Manet’s and Velazquez’s–masters of the figure who in their own ways avoided the banal literalities of their contemporaries for a rendition truer to the vagaries of vision, and (thereby) to the dynamics of human presence.” Jon Deen (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"NEW SOURCE ADDED" is a blatantly false statement. This source was already in the article at the time when it was deleted, Jon Deen simply added a blockquote from it to the body of the article. See the deleted and then restored version. It's external link # 6. Kraxler (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I address this in an answer below, but I did delete external link #6 for the sake of avoiding redundancy.Jon Deen (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem deleting it now, it appears as # 6 in the restored version linked above. Kraxler (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question User:Jon Deen, did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted."? If yes, what was his advice? Kraxler (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer 1. The question by Kraxler above is accusatory and irrelevant. 2. Instead focusing on the fact the article has been improved and changed significantly Kraxler uses inflammatory terms such as "blatantly false statement". 3. I have added a reference to a book that Gershman's work is included "From Picasso to Pop" (reference 2). I have also added her education background and important mentors including Mike Kelley who is considered "one of the most influential American artists of the past quarter century". 4. Kraxler ignores the fact that I have added a significant quote by Peter Frank who compares Gershman's work to Édouard Manet, Diego Velázquez, John Singer Sargent, and James Abbott McNeill Whistler -- or are they not noteworthy as well? Peter Frank is described by Wikipedia: "an American art critic, curator, and poet who lives and works in Los Angeles. He was the Senior Curator at the Riverside Art Museum and an art critic for Angeleno Magazine. He is a frequent contributor to The Huffington Post. Until July 9, 2008, he was a long-time critic for LA Weekly. He was a past editor of Visions Art Quarterly and was an art critic for The Village Voice and The SoHo Weekly News in New York." Does Kraxler doubt Peter Frank's assessment of Gershman as noteworthy? Jon Deen (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question was "did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted? If yes, what was his advice?" A simple yes or no would suffice. By the way, Peter Frank's testimonial was already included in the article (as external link). WP:GNG says "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". A single laudatio by an art critic who presents a minor award has taken for what it is at the previous discussion. And name dropping is not what establishes notability. And reference # 2 shows the book cover, not any link to Gershman being mentioned there. Kraxler (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Kraxler previously had an issue with The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, accusing it of (and I quote Kraxler here): “biased towards minor local celebrities, after all they have to fill their pages somehow” and therefore disregarding it as a valid reference. The Jewish Journal dedicated a full feature article to Gershman’s art and her career. Here is the Wikipedia description of the journal: “The Jewish Journal is recognized as the major Jewish paper in Los Angeles, which has the second-largest Jewish population in the United States. The Los Angeles Times called The Jewish Journal "an influential weekly." It has received a number of awards from the Los Angeles Press Club over the years. Jewishjournal.com is ranked by Statcounter, Google Analytics, and Compete.com as having the most monthly unique users of any American Jewish news web site.” Gershman clearly meets WP:GNG standards. Jeremy chessman (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — Jeremy chessman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The only two sources that are useful are the Artsweekly and Jewish Journal. The rest are promotional (one is written by Charles E. Miller & Tina Gulotta Miller, the executive producers of a film on Gershman and appears in at least two of the sources provided) or only mention her in passing. Two rather meagre sources do not establish notability. freshacconci talk to me 19:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freshacconci Glad you see the two sources Artsweekly and Jewish Journals as useful. Would like to point out that Arte Al Límite is indeed independent and notable source: "The magazine is published bimonthly and international distribution and customized features in-depth interviews and reports outstanding artists from around the world". Gershman was featured in the last issue with 6 pages dedicated to her and her art (see online version here). Zocalo public square is another independent source for Zhenya Gershman's career as an artist. Then there is Monsters and Critics review, "with approximately 343,331 visitors per day, and 1,201,658 page views per day."! Thank you for taking a close look at these and other sources. Jon Deen (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question, Jon Deen: "Did you contact the anonymous user who offered help at User talk:Jon Deen#Zhenya Gershman "on how to not get articles you create deleted? If yes, what was his advice?" A simple yes or no would suffice. Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GRAMMY MusiCares selected Gershman to create portraits of Bruce Springsteen new ref. 4 and Bob Dylan new ref. 5. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Sini zaichik (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Sini zaichik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sini zaichik/Archive. [reply]
Keep - per same argument made in first nomination —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several sources in the article provide significant coverage about her. Here are three examples: this article^WebCite in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles (titled "Zhenya Gershman, ‘Larger Than Life’"), this article^WebCite in Arteallimite (titled "Russia | Painting | Zhenya Gershman"), and this article in Le Monde.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhenya Gershman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the two sources (Artweek and Jewish Journal) really aren't enough to confer notability. Theredproject (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources provide the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But even if they were not enough, the Le Monde article further establishes that the subject is notable. Le Monde is considered by Encyclopædia Britannica to be "one of the most important and widely respected newspapers in the world" (source: http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/389079/Le-Monde). Cunard (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Le Monde article mentions the person Zhenya Gershman in a single sentence: "Née à Moscou, installée en Californie, elle est peintre, mais travaille aussi au service éducatif du musée Getty, à Los Angeles." (Translation: "Born in Moscow, living in California, she's a painter, but works also for the educational service of the Getty Museum in Los Angeles.") The rest of the article is about her spotting a self-portrait of Rembrandt in a painting which has been ignored by academia. Kraxler (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Le Monde article mentions Zhenya Gershman seven times, not one time:
1. C'est une démarche similaire qu'a dû connaître l'artiste Zhenya Gershman. Née à Moscou, installée en Californie, elle est peintre, mais travaille aussi au service éducatif du musée Getty, à Los Angeles. Un beau jour, contemplant une reproduction de Danaé (1636), célébrissime tableau de Rembrandt conservé au Musée de l'Ermitage, à Saint-Pétersbourg, elle a une vision
2. Zhenya Gershman pense donc, tout naturellement, que sa petite découverte est déjà bien connue des historiens, ainsi qu'elle le confie au Monde
3. N'y tenant plus, Zhenya Gershman demande rendez-vous au directeur du Musée Getty, David Bomford
4. Russophone, Zhenya Gershman a eu accès a des ouvrages rarement consultés à la bibliothèque du Getty, comme celui de Youri Kuznetsov, "un des premiers à décrire le nu central du tableau comme un hybride fondé sur deux modèles : Saskia, la femme de Rembrandt, et sa maîtresse ultérieure".
5. Zhenya Gershman ne se prétend pas historienne d'art, mais peintre. "Etre une artiste est précisément ce qui m'a permis de voir la peinture de Danaé clairement", dit-elle. Sa description du tableau, purement factuelle, mérite attention, ne serait-ce que parce qu'elle distingue près de la main de la "servante" une forme qui pourrait être une palette, et des traits qui lui évoquent des pinceaux.
6. Le dédain des spécialistes face à la conviction de Zhenya Gershman vient peut-être simplement de ce qu'ils détestent les amateurs.
7. Zhenya Gershman ne mentionne pas cet accident, et c'est regrettable car il pourrait expliquer le léger flou qui entoure le personnage qu'elle identifie comme Rembrandt. Et lui ouvrir d'autres pistes, en interrogeant notamment lesdits restaurateurs de Danaé, qui ont dû passer sur ce tableau plus de temps que n'importe qui, et sans doute plus que Rembrandt lui-même.
The article is under a paywall, which is why you were able to see only one mention of Zhenya Gershman. To see the full article, search for the article on Google and click on the link to the article.
I think there is enough biographical material here to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I saw only a part of it, yes. Thanks for clarifying this point. Kraxler (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:TOOSOON as well as WP:GNG. As per User:DGG's comments in the first AfD, she has one academic discovery, which does not seem to have exactly shaken the art world to its foundations, based on the G-Scholar results (cited by 1) [27]. The LeMonde article is interesting (and echoes what is in her one scholarly article), but that alone doesn't establish her as an artist nor a scholar. I must admit that I avoided this AfD for a while because of the vehemence of the supporters here, at least one of which is a very dedicated wp:SPA. That kind of response always makes me wonder about WP:COI, because it makes little sense to put this much effort into arguing a case unless there is something more than an interest in the subject. Either the sources are there or they are not. Hammering on them doesn't make them more important than they are. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain I said the last time, not yet notable ss s psinter, and I think that's the case. Nonetheless, there is the article in Le monde, and I am reluctant to second-guess the cultural editors of so distinguished a journal, a journal known for its high intellectual level beyond that of any English language newspaper. Reading the article carefully, I remain puzzled--the article is not about her art. It's about her identification of a figure in one of Rembrandt's paintings as Rembrandt. The extensive article sets it in context--it explains that this particular identification is not widely accepted, it discusses other identifications of Rembrandt in his paintings, it discusses the reasons for the skepticism of art historians about amateur contributions to the subject. (a;; this quite as would be expected). Does this make her notable as a painter? no. Does it by itself make her notable as a scholar? We've had a recurrent problem with junior academics whose work happens to be taken up by a major newspaper or popular magazine, often on the grounds of human interest in the work of someone so you--and, almost always, so photogenic. I've usually said no--the popular press is the popular press, and we are an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question I wanted to thank everyone for their comments. I also wanted to point out the other scholarly publication on Rembrandt by Gershman at Boston University Arion. It was a subject of her essay for Huffington Post as well. A few days ago it was featured by Artnet News in an article 7 Reasons We Love Rembrandt on His Birthday. Should this be added as a reference to the article on Wiki? I appreciate everyone's expertise and advice. Jon Deen (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - It's a trivial mention (one of the 7 "reasons") in a blog post at a sales outlet, I doubt it makes any difference for notability. But, feel free to add anything you deem interesting to the article. And, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer Kraxler. I appreciate your help and staying open. To clarify, in response to your question -- NO - I didn't contact the solicitor as it seemed to me it was some kind of illegitimate offer.Jon Deen (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, the offer on your talk page just made me curious. It's certainly a unique offer, I haven't seen anything like that anywhere else here around. Kraxler (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kraxler, there was a notice on the AfC board about people being contacted by supposed admins offering to accept articles for $$. This seems to be a new scam. Hopefully, since most people aren't editing here for profit, few will fall for it. LaMona (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a tricky one. I'm with DGG in finding this on the borderline of notability: she would not quite make it as an artist, just yet, though she'll only have to do one or two more 'big' paintings and there'll be no doubt. She has not really made it as a scholar (bit of a WP:BLP1E), yet Le Monde has seriously considered her claim, which is almost evidence of notability in its own right. And her striking appearance has got her into various publications, not evidence of notability either unless the interest is sustained for a good while (a year or two, really). All of this suggests WP:TOOSOON - she is on the threshold and while we could accept this now, experience says we'd do better to wait a little longer and see what turns up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under consideration. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've held off on re-!voting to not think about this page and come at it with fresh eyes. However, my opinion has not changed, and I am in agreement with Chiswick and DGG - she has one academic find and a few paintings: TOOSOON for either category. I think the largest argument is Le Monde article and its followers, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally; it's a great story, but until she demonstrates that she can make a career out of this sort of thing it's just a one-off event. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for considering. I'd like to point out that Gershman has published two significant papers in Arion, Boston University: Rembrandt the I Witness and Rembrandt Turn of the Key. She has a pending publication "Rembrandt's Secret" in the next volume of WESTPHALIA PRESS. As an artist, Gershman has demonstrated over two decades of exhibition history. She has exhibited both nationally and internationally, including in such prestigious venues as Art Miami, Art Chicago, LA Platform, San Francisco Art Market, Los Angeles Art Show, Bergamot Station to name a few... Jon Deen (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria for WP:Artist. With published works in notable sources, I'm not quite aware of the controversy, W1i2k3i45 (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Being on Instagram and having dated somebody are not ways to become notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Lee Taylor[edit]

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

The only secondary source seems to be a press-release-looking theatre blog entry announcing his appearance in an apparently minor Tesla play from a few years ago. No assertion that Taylor meets any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. McGeddon (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been added a few references to back up all claims. James Lee Taylor is a recurring character in the show "Being Mary Jane" and also rumoured to have dated english celebrity Kelly Brook. On top of having a large instagram fan base I would argue this person is of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.25.247 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — 90.220.25.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 15:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons given by — 90.220.25.247 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , and I've confirmed that he's dated Kelly Brook^[1] Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Moved misplaced post in chronological sequence and added indent for clarity - no change in content. GermanJoe (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V; see Being Mary Jane cast list. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, he is in four episodes to be broadcast next year. The buzz on the internet says "joined the cast", so I suppose they will be filming this year... Kraxler (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

listal.com appears to be a simple mirror of IMDb, and the WP:CITEIMDB essay discourages using IMDb to source "Cast lists, etc. for films and television programming that are still in development or production, and have yet to premiere." If there is "buzz on the internet", has it reached any reliable sources? --McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "buzz" is mostly on blogs and things that are known here as "fancruft", I suppose. Nothing that would help to establish notability, so far, IMO. listal.com cleared up the question about his participation in the soap, since he's not listed in the cast at the official site, and it says that the episodes have not been aired yet. His notability hinges on what to make of his Tesla appearance (off-Broadway) and his being the face for a wodca commercial, and it looks very slim, indeed. Kraxler (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the evidence overall. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- to judge by the article, he has achieved rather little in over 20 years as an actor in Los Angeles. Looks NN to me. Sure, there are probably sources on him, but the problem is notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2935071/Kelly-Brook-dating-model-James-Lee-Taylor.html

The result was keep. Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village merged to replace DAB. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Line (Pittsburgh)[edit]

See also: User talk:Hoof Hearted § Blue Line (Pittsburgh)

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

This is a "duplicate" disambiguation page per WP:INCOMPDAB. Both entries at this dab can also be found at Blue Line, which makes this one unnecessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why can't people stop throwing around WP:ACRONYMS and use a little common sense? If someone searches for Blue Line (Pittsburgh) they are looking for either (or both) Blue Line – Library or/and Blue Line – South Hills Village — NOT another disambiguation page. (And chances are they already know that Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania.) We eliminate double redirects, so why the insistence on creating a double-disambiguation?
Now, if someone were to propose merging Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village into Blue Line (Pittsburgh), then I would whole-heartedly support that. Useddenim (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is WP:INCOMPDAB. We don't just create editing guidelines for no reason. It's just as easy for someone searching for "Blue Line (Pittsburgh)" to be taken to a section at Blue Line that lists both Pittsburgh Blue Lines (see: Blue Line#Pennsylvania.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is already covered by the Blue Line disambiguation page. There is no reason for this to de-disambiguate.--Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Line#Pennsylvania. I agree with Tavix's comment above. This gives the reader the information they are looking for, without violating the guidelines at WP:INCOMPDAB. It takes them directly to a section with only three entries, so readers won't be bogged down either. Rpclod, Useddenim and Tavix, is this something you could support? Boleyn (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Useddenim (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Boleyn's suggestion is ok. --Rpclod (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, that's what I've been advocating this whole time. Check out the history of that page. It's been merged before, by me, BD2412 and Hoof Hearted and every time it was reverted. I figured taking it here would be the best place to get a binding solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section-redirect to Blue Line, as with all WP:INCOMPDAB cases. Also, admin-protect the resulting Blue Line (Pittsburgh) redirect to avoid future disruptions of consensus. bd2412 T 13:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of transparency, I must note that I was asked by Useddenim to come here to see if he's out of line. That being said, my initial reaction was to agree with Boleyn, but after looking at the two pages listed in this disambiguation, the only thing that makes sense is to keep and merge both pages into Blue Line (Pittsburgh). Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village cover the same rail line but are split based on the southern terminals. There's nowhere near enough information on either to warrant standalone articles. Yes, Blue Line (Pittsburgh) shouldn't be a disambiguation page; it should be the companion page for Red Line (Pittsburgh) on the Blue Line. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a nice compromise. I added this to the transportation delsort to see if we can get some more opinions regarding this proposal. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the consensus is to merge Blue Line – Library and Blue Line – South Hills Village into Blue Line (Pittsburgh)? Useddenim (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be a reasonable compromise. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, then someone needs to add a ((merge)) tag to those pages… Useddenim (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm late on this, but I also vote to Merge and section-redirect to Blue Line (Pittsburgh). That page shouldn't be a dab, and there's enough material for both on one page. If I could decide which version to add first, I'd do it myself right now, and boldly remove the deletion tag. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirects and dab pages are cheap. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I just made a test edit for the merge. I know there was stuff left behind from the dab version, but otherwise let me know what you think of it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It works for me. Useddenim (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. Anyone else? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - UPDATE - I just went ahead and did it anyway. If anyone wants to fix anything there, feel free to do so. In the meantime, I'll just change the classes of the two article to redirect. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to close[edit]

Okay, the two articles have been merged into the disambiguation page. Does anybody want to close this talk page, so I can remove the deletion tag without any fear of rampaging administrators getting on my case about it? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ake Rice Mill Co.[edit]

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

Lack of sources. One self ref, and the other from a business directory. This repeatedly created article, better than previous versions, still has no reliable sources. Bazj (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sending WP:APPNOTE to Naypta and Northamerica1000. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Sovereign Sentinel. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 09:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - standard searches did not reveal enough substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional, created by a blocked user. Deb (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Many of the "keep" arguments are not persuasive; "growing" notability, for instance, is not enough to justify the existence of an article. The subject may well become more prominent in the near future, and at that time we can revisit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Haskins[edit]

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

I'm not convinced this columnist is notable. He has undoubtedly written a few columns for notable organisations, but all the citations are either to his writing or his potted bios on the websites of those organisations. I can find no substantial secondary coverage about the person himself. Note that the article has previously been deleted, but that was about a different person (a non-notable martial artist) of the same name. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sourced verification of his existence is not what gets a blogger, conservative or liberal or otherwise, into Wikipedia — independent reliable source coverage of him in unaffiliated media is what it takes, but there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies as notable journalist. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please explain how he qualifies. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the original author of the article. The entry is notable not only because Haskins has been published in numerous important publications, such as Fox News, the New York Post, etc., but also because he is a columnist at a leading conservative publication, Townhall.com, and the editor at a notable think tank, The Heartland Institute. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the original author of the article. Significant updates have been made to this article to address the concerns presented here. Multiple additional unaffiliated sources have been added, including The Washington Post. I also added Haskins' notable controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank and added information that shows Haskins is a columnist at Townhall.com, a leading online conservative publication. Liberty Editor (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's really no substantial secondary coverage about the person. A few snarks at something he wrote, and gosh, he graduated from high school and won an award in college. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 14:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the article. Your argument is absolutely untrue and completely without merit. As it is clearly displayed in the article, Haskins has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, the Washington Post, writers at Breitbart.com and Newsmax, and others. Additionally, the argument that no unaffiliated sources are present is not accurate, especially now that additions have been made to the article to address this concern. Numerous unaffiliated sources exist, including from the Washington Post, Newsmax, and others. His controversy with nationally syndicated columnist Dana Milbank is also notable. LibertyEditor (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited by other people doesn't boost a person's notability — he has to be the subject of the coverage, not just namechecked in coverage of other things that aren't him. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you take the time to read the Dana Milbank column published across the country, but originally in the Washington Post, you'll see he was clearly the subject of the column. Further, he was ALSO the subject of the story in the Newsmax story featured, as well as one of the subjects of the Breitbart.com-James Delingpole article cited. You're not even bothering to read the sources. Factually, it is undeniable he was the subject of those pieces. He was also clearly featured by Rush Limbaugh in a segment on Obamacare. Limbaugh appears to have discussed Haskins at length. This was also cited in the article. LibertyEditor (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Milbank story simply briefly quotes Haskins because he's talking about Heartland doing a volte face on climate change. There's nothing about Haskins himself. Similarly, the Limbaugh story comes about because Limbaugh read part of one of his columns out on his show. Again, there's nothing about him (except saying who he is "He's an editor for the Heartland Institute"). I did try to find sources about Haskins before I brought this AfD, but I'm still seeing nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Milbank story does not simply "briefly quote" Haskins. A considerable part of the story discusses the article he wrote for Human Events. Obviously there is no biographical information about Haskins, but that's not the point of the citation. I have plenty of citations for that already. The Milbank article relies heavily on quotes from Haskins' writing. Additionally, your assertion Limbaugh quoted "part" of the Haskins story is factually untrue. He read essentially the whole thing on the air and introduced the article by saying who Haskins is. That means Limbaugh featured Haskins' piece, which, by the way, was published in the New York Post, a major publication. Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water, because again, the point is not to show people are listing biographical data about a person, but rather that the person is having an effect on the world of policy, news, media, etc. You say you tried to find sources about Haskins, but I have already listed numerous sources by unaffiliated parties talking about Haskins, who he is, and about his work. This is precisely what makes him notable. He's a writer whose articles have been read by millions of readers, he's a columnist at a well-known and highly read publication, and he works for a well-known public policy organization. His work has been cited and featured by influential people, publications, and organizations, such as Rush Limbaugh, the American Conservative Union, Newsmax, and Breitbart.com, among others. With all due respect, I just don't see how you can make the arguments you're making here, and I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself. LibertyEditor (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I added another citation, this time from an interview Haskins had with Rhode Island radio talk show host Buddy Cianci, who has one of the most popular talk radio shows in the state. This provides another example of an unaffiliated source mentioning Haskins.

Well, that would be a start, except that weblink doesn't mention anything about Haskins. Can you fix it? More to the point, you said "Your argument that there is nothing "about him" doesn't really hold much water...". But it does, because it's the only thing that matters here. WP:BIO is quite clear - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". There are two important words here. Firstly "they". This means the person must have been covered, not something that they've written. Secondly "significant". The coverage about that person needs to be in-depth, passing mentions are not relevant. The amount of coverage produced so far about Haskins himself in secondary sources is not only not significant, but is indeed negligible. We need articles about Haskins here, that's the whole point. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the link clearly goes to the site where the podcast interview between Haskins and Cianci is listed. You just have to scroll down to see it. You can't link directly to the podcast on that site. I understand your concern, but as I stated previously numerous times, these sources do, in fact, link to articles that are both about Haskins and about what he is writing, which are in essence one and the same thing. Virtually any writer is going to have similar kinds of sources, and having looked at numerous other writers of all political persuasions, it's clear to me that the sources presented here are very similar to those approved articles of other writers that are included on Wikipedia. Haskins has, as I pointed out, received significant coverage. His works have been talked about in numerous publications, by media personalities, and by important organizations. I've linked to many of them here. The references are not "in passing" anymore than any other references are "in passing" on virtually every other Wikipedia page. Unless an article is SOLELY about one person or a book is solely about one person, there is no such thing as a source that meets your definition, which again, virtually no article on Wikipedia, especially related to authors, fits. You say we need articles "about Haskins," but you haven't even defined what that means! Short of providing sources that speak only about Haskins' job title, place of birth, etc., which I have provided, there aren't any sources that would be like that for ANY political writer or author. Your standards are not adhered to by virtually ALL of the other writers listed in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I'm sure we could go on and on, but at some point, an editor is just going to have to make a decision. LibertyEditor (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I re-read the article and make slight editing changes. The subject is an upwardly-mobile journalist on the political right. He has been widely published in major periodicals and it seems to me should qualify as a journalist for inclusion in Wikipedia. There are plenty of sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Fence / Weak Keep: I think the subject has some growing notability and there are a couple of references outside of his own works. I think better sourcing of his notability from reliable third party sources (newspapers, news organizations, etc.) would help move me closer towards a keep. Merely listing that he has articles and has been read by other commentators really doesn't cut it. It's a mixed bag, but it's one that I think can be overcome. If anything, I say keep it and keep working on it. 5minutes (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not obviously pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. There is a claim above that this person has had significant coverage. Please, without discussion, simply provide 2-3 sources which feature this person as the subject of coverage. Signal me if these sources are provided and I will change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, despite my personal opinion of the Rightist Heartland Institute. Billy Hathorn has saved yet another crappy stub. The sources added prove that he's been covered by real sources, albeit not as extensively as some bloggers are. His appearance with Buddy in RI is a big endorsement by a @#$@&% wingbat. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus here that the article does meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Eizenman[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per [28] it looks like he played for Israeli National Team at the World Championship. That is enough to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Agtx (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:HOCKEY criteria is very weak as he never played higher than Division I for one year and all of the rest was at the Division II level. Any other leagues that he played in are of no status to the project. Deadman137 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a couple of news articles, his college team, and his role in an overtimve victory over Australia. I think it passes now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are those articles anything more than just WP:ROUTINE? Deadman137 (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOCKEY says playing on national team. I accept that, but these 2 articles do add to notability and enable us to source his college team.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOCKEY specifies that notability is presumed from playing on a senior national team such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship. Israel is playing in Division II. If this is enough to presume notability, then excuse me while I go create hundreds of articles for Mexican and North Korean hockey players. Joeykai (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sourcing, building the article now. He googles very well. I totally get that you're policing WP for articles about athletes who are too minor to merit articles. And admit freely my general ignorance of sports. However, when an athlete or topic in any category fails the rule of thumb guideline (must be Division I, etc.) it's a good idea to follow WP:BEFORE and see if he's notable in some other way - In this case, because of lots of media coverage of his college career - before starting an AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you can find articles about his college career but similar articles in the past have been dismissed as routine sports coverage and the independence of the authors is usually very questionable at best. Also note that just playing college hockey does not make him notable, he would have had to have earned some type of preeminent honour and he did not do so. Deadman137 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [[29]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The league you have cited in the article does not meet accepted criteria for a major collegiate league as you can clearly see here. Also getting a tryout with an NHL team means nothing, as pre-season games don't satisfy the condition of playing a game in a top professional league as they are considered nothing more than exhibition games. At this point you have to be able to prove that he is notable for something other than being an ice hockey player. Deadman137 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Players are "presumed notable" if the meet the criteria you have mentioned WP:HOCKEY. Of course, other editors may choose to see press coverage of dramatic, overtime goals to win championship games, the follow up coverage of a former pro athlete now at a blue-linked law firm, or other aspects of his life as adding up to notability. Since none of us WP:OWNs this discussion or WP:GNG, I suggest we let other editors weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the case of Patrick Klöpper from earlier this year, he has played at a higher level than this player ever has and yet he is not notable enough for an article. This player has not passed WP:NHOCKEY as article six is normally applied to players at the championship level, this player has played in nothing higher than a fourth tier competition. His college career is nothing but routine sports coverage that many players in North America normally receive. No one has claimed ownership of this conversation, so far you have only been called out for not understanding the policies that are applied in these conversations. Deadman137 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First off, the subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. It has been our long-established practice to count only the top pool competing for the actual World Championship, rather than lower divisions that do not actually compete for the honor. Since the entire point of subordinate notability criteria such as NHOCKEY is to predict whether someone will meet the GNG or not, it ought to be obvious that teams at the bottom of the barrel aren't likely to generate such coverage.
As far as the flurry of sources added to the article, let's examine them. This one [30] mentions the subject in a single sentence. This one [31] is a short fluff piece in a college paper. This one [32] is a blog post mentioning the subject in just two sentences. These two [33][34] are routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. This one [35] is a broken link. The only legitimate source I can see is the Post-Gazette article, but one qualifying source isn't enough to meet the GNG, and the only other sources that come up on a Highbeam search are routine match coverage from the Jerusalem Post. Ravenswing 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several of Ravenswing's assertions are not accurate. This article [Lungen, Paul (1 May 2008). "Israeli hockey hopes melting away". Metro West Jewish News} was far more than "routine sports coverage" (can't link because I got there through a Proquest subscription); this one [36] was a full profile in a large-circulation, national ethnic newspaper, Eizenman is written up in 2 books (one the autobiography of his college coach Joe Battista); this article [[37]] is not a "blog post," Ravenswing describes it as being, rather, it was published in a local, online newspaper; and, of course, One man's "fluff piece" is another man's feature story, [38]; Other editors may or may not agree with me on notability; but I do think that editors ought to be responsible about describing the sources they assess at AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by those assertions. As far as whether the "Metro West Jewish News" is a reliable source, odds are that a paper not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article doesn't meet that standard. College papers generally aren't regarded as meeting it either. That Eizenman is, purportedly, mentioned in two books is nice: are you stipulating that he received "significant coverage" in those books, as the GNG requires, and from where do you get that information? And so on. Obviously you don't agree with me, but I take umbrage at the insinuation that disagreeing with you is tantamount to intentional deception. Ravenswing 04:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Jewish News and the Metro West are both bluelinked. Circulations larger than many general American newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure He doesn't seem to meet notability re WP:NHOCKEY but looking at the awards as listed on his elite prospects entry, he might meet notability re WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not sure whether awards won as a Nittany Lions qualify - it's not a top college team - he was ACHA player of the year - but I don't think ACHA is held in the same regard re notability as NCAA?? In any event, I'm happy going w/ the consensus - but for those who want to delete see whether his any of his college awards qualify re college athlete notability. GLG GLG (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He fails WP:NCOLLATH as well. The ACHA is considered an equivalent to NCAA Division III and I do not recall seeing any articles dedicated to athletes at this level of competition unless they qualified for an article under some other criteria. Deadman137 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I'm concerned, the sources presented in the article are enough to warrant a GNG pass. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lungen, Paul (2012-04-19). "Alon Eizenman named to U.S. college Hall-of-Fame". Canadian Jewish News. Archived from the original on 2015-06-29. Retrieved 2015-06-29.
2. Molinari, Dave (2001-09-15). "Penn State graduate impresses Penguins". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2004-02-29. Retrieved 2015-06-29.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alon Eizenman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says:
Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?
A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.
Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria. In this case, it is clear from the detailed biographical details that the sources directly discuss the subject. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same puff pieces that can be found about a lot of other non-notable ice hockey players. Everything that has been written about this guy is just routine sports coverage. The first article talks about him getting into a hall of fame for a non-notable league, the second article talks about him trying to make the Pittsburgh Penguins and I could go find a bunch of similar articles right now about other non-notable players on just about any NHL team's website. Deadman137 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic police (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not needed dab per WP:TWODABS. Has 1 valid entry = the primary topic - see the WP:DABCONCEPT (DC) Traffic police - all those other entries are examples of the primary topic so are not included in a dab per WP:DABCONCEPT / WP:MOSDAB "Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page." (emphasis own)
This is a recreation & duplicate of the DC at Traffic police, so a valid (but contested) CSD. Listing at AfD for more scrutiny (and in respect to Rich's well-formed edit muscles) Widefox; talk 11:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(See also Traffic policing. A similar and related dab. Even combining both dabs doesn't give more than a 1 primary and 1 other topic) Widefox; talk 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this as a dab page if Traffic police is to be an article. If traffic police is to be a disambiguation page, then redirect there (keeping any improvements).
The page was previously a redirect to Traffic police. The redirect was speedied on the basis that Traffic police isn't a dab page. This (dab page) is being proposed for speedy on the basis that Traffic police is a dab page. Both statements can't be correct at the same time.
Not all the entries are examples, and none are mere examples. They would all be known as "traffic police" or "the Traffic Police".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Unless someone has a good reason not to, the upper and lowercase Traffic police Traffic Police should have the same target i.e. the DC Traffic police. My speedy was that it's a duplication of an existing article (a DC) in a previous form (e.g. inheriting the style issue on the BBC entry etc), as well as being a dab with arguably only duplicate entries from the primary topic (per WP:BROADCONCEPT, so leaving a dab with 1 valid entry failing WP:TWODABS. Widefox; talk 11:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Traffic Police was originally a R from other cap and recently changed without justification. Now it's back to targetting the DC. Widefox; talk 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Traffic police is an article (per above). This AfD isn't about that article which should be decided there. Widefox; talk 13:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:DABCONCEPT is a guideline, and may not reflect actual practice, where many broad concept articles are accompanied by DAB pages. Even the examples listed have DAB pages, notably Particle (disambiguation), National Trust (disambiguation) and Football (disambiguation). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(offtopic caveat) Well, if it doesn't we should bring it in-line Rich. I picked what I thought was the easiest one National Trust (disambiguation). It needed cleaning up a bit, and the National Trust stub/start is wavering between/a combo of SIA, broadconcept, dab and list. Hmm, I've plumped for broadconcept and fixed too. Widefox; talk 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The DC National Trust is at the wrong capitalisation, so requested a swap of the DC and the redirect. The dab and hatnotes are already ready for the move. Widefox; talk 10:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now the dust has settled on National Trust (disambiguation), the DC examples aren't included in the dab. That dab example is exactly what I'm proposing here, and in line with WP:DABCONCEPT, so may be a bad example for that point (which at the heart may be the issue of WP:RELATED?). Widefox; talk 10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary topic and traffic officer are the only legitimate dab entries I see. The rest can be, and in many cases, have already been merged into Traffic police. Also redirect Traffic Police there. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend traffic officer is a redir to Traffic police so not even a valid entry. Widefox; talk 10:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic officer was a disambiguation page that was moved to Traffic officer (disambiguation) and deleted, after the redirect was re-targeted to Traffic police. I have asked for a WP:REFUND of Traffic officer (disambiguation) to find out what is going on. (This is the sort of investigation I would prefer to do in advance of a deletion request.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The refund has been done, as can be seen from the above blue link. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

It's not that they have been merged into Traffic police, it's that Traffic police is a dab page trying to become an article. If it becomes an article most of the uses will be hard to find, and this dab page will be needed. Otherwise (if it reverts to a dab page)this needs to be a redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The current state of Traffic police is a WP:DABCONCEPT, which appears to me the best right now and unless there's a new better arrangement proposed, for the future too. (Of course, discussion of the primary topic should go there not here). Widefox; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic officer (disambiguation) is similar - there's a primary topic that includes these links. The navigation theory being that readers go to the PT first, and then they'd never need the dab as they're all in the PT. Widefox; talk 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may be a tiny bit of merit in having at least Traffic Cops in a dab (or preferably a hatnote), per the grey area of WP:RELATED. A hatnote may be better though. Widefox; talk 11:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. It seems to me that there are ~~three~~four broad concepts relating to traditional policing, and additional ones relating to communications.
- Traffic officers, people who are not police but who police traffic
  - Note that "Traffic officer" has a specific legal meaning in the legislation of the UK see this version - which has been lost by the merging and dabbing and redirecting. It also should be developed to cover other groups and the role that a traffic officer has, and be broadened to cover other jurisdictions if appropriate (notably Canada).
- Traffic police, police employees, including police officers, who police traffic
- Traffic policing, the art and science of policing traffic.
- Traffic Police - the name of a department concerned with policing traffic e.g. Traffic Police (Sri Lanka)
  Typically they will employ traffic police, including police officers, as well as other people who work for the Traffic Police but who are neither police nor police traffic.
Of course there is also the traffic policing (communications)

In addition there are related concepts concerning trafficking (guns, drugs, people) which we have not yet covered in WP.

There may be other meanings that are relevant too.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

At least one WP:DABCONCEPT is the right consolidation here - we have many synonyms and proper nouns with different national arrangements. Agree some dabconcepts rather than creating a set of nav dabs just sends readers round the houses IMHO. WP:RELATED is to be considered. I haven't looked at the overall picture thoroughly. Widefox; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful not to build imprecise hodge-podges and call them disambiguation pages. The phrase "Traffic police" is never used, so far as I can tell to refer to "traffic policing" in communications. I know of no police department responsible for addressing "trafficking" that is known as "traffic police". It seems misleading to suggest otherwise. If we step away from title matches, then we are stepping away from the kind of ambiguity that requires a navigational page. bd2412 T 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. Duplicating entries from several primary topic dabconcepts in a set of dabs may not be helpful, but suggest something like creating a list article with all these related orgs/roles. Widefox; talk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have to request an overall plan for the proposed arrangement above (four DCs and presumably hatnotes/dabs) Rich, before we just delete these recreated dabs that all need cleanup too. Widefox; talk 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We have apparatus for doing this. I would suggest:

Traffic police an article about traffic police - that is
1. the people who either
  - Work for the Traffic Police or
  - are police who deal largely or exclusively with traffic
2. closely related matter
  - purpose of job
  - broadly what they do
  - how it varies from country to country
  - the authority they act under, who they are employed by etc.
Traffic officer a short page (don't care if you call it dab, set index or dabconcept)
1. explaining what a traffic officer is in the UK, Canada, other countries if known.
2. Linking to the various detailed articles where they exist.
3. Hat note to Traffic police
Traffic officer (disambiguation) move back to Traffic officer over redirect, without leaving a redirect (unless Traffic officer is going to be a dab or SIA page), for attribution purposes.
Traffic police (disambiguation) clean up, extend list of entities called Traffic Police, if it's long enough move to List of traffic police departments or similar.
- Hat note/see also to traffic policing
Traffic Police redirect to wherever the comprehensive list of Traffic Police Departments is going to be.
Traffic policing either keep as dab page, or move Traffic policing (communications) here and use a hat note.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

[Traffic police]... But that is beside the point. RF 13:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- How is a traffic officer any different than an individual instance of traffic police? How is the current setup of Traffic officer (disambiguation) any different than a limited fork of traffic police? The content of the dab should be merged into Traffic police and the dab itself deleted. bd2412 T 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole point is that traffic officers are not traffic police! For example they cannot stop you for speeding. You can hodge-podge them into the traffic police "article" if you wish. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

My initial reaction is: this proposal strikes me as a wikt vs WP issue (and navigation per WP:RELATED). We are meant to de-emphasise regional/national proper nouns and create articles with international scope. We can arrange titles and navigation giving higher priority to the proper nouns but that is at the expense of easy arrangement/nav. I'm quite happy that the direction of the current arrangement of converting dabs to broadconcepts is useful and guideline/policy based. I could easily be wrong, would need to double check this proposal. (two minor points Rich 1. the EXT link uses the image and title of roadside law enforcement only for illustration (rather than as a serious term), 2. in the proposal Traffic officer is too much emphasis on UK/Canada without much global scope in the grand picture here, a hatnote at the Traffic officer target site per WP:RELATED would be better) Widefox; talk 10:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Traffic officer" redirects here. For the related concept "traffic officer" see Highways Agency Traffic Officers, England, Welsh Government Traffic Officers, Dartford Crossing Traffic Officers, South Wales Trunk Road Agent, Traffic Officer Western Cape, Bylaw enforcement officer (Australia), Saskatchewan Traffic Officer, Traffic agent (Spain) see also trasportation officer...

I think the key point is that some of these concepts don't belong in a broad-concept "Traffic police" article, and shoehorning them in, because they were in the previous dab page that it replaces is a bad idea.

The broad-concept article can serve eliminate the requirement for disambiguation if it covers all the concepts that could sit at the disambiguation page. The current traffic police article only does this because of the section "examples of traffic police departments", "Traffic officers who are not sworn police officers" and "see also". The first is not complete, the second does not belong on the page (unless you want to move it to traffic officer) and the third is rather odd, and not what a mature article would have. The link to Traffic Cops (documentary) clearly does not belong there, while it might be allowable on a dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The primary topic here is still people who are employed by some branch of government to regulate road traffic, with some measure of authority to do this. Policing, more generally, is equally diverse. There are small towns with a single law enforcement officer, and there are major cities with a large police force containing many levels and divisions. There are countries where the police have a military level of authority. We don't treat these as ambiguous concepts, but as variations in the range of discussing a single broad concept. bd2412 T 23:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't a valid topic for a disambiguation page, since everything in it is about one thing, already covered in the article Traffic police, from where links should go to local traffic police departments having articles of their own. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Procedural closure as No valid reason provided. Feel free to renominate the article for deletion with a valid reason. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Femarelle[edit]

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

I would like to request from the Wikipedia community to remove the Femarelle entry for the following reasons:
1.The current entry does not include all the up to date scientific data, which should be part of a media that supposedly brings all the knowledge to the front.
2.Every attempt of updating reliable and up to date data, published in the leading international medical journals was removed or deleted by one specific person that has a very strong agenda against the product for some reason.
3.This same person has deleted the previous entries that were there historically and did provide information on the studies.
4.The current references do not support what is written.
5.There is a general feeling that the product is being targeted because of conflict of interest.
6.It was never our intention or attempt to advertise our product through Wikipedia. It was merely our intention to provide scientific evidence and facts which for some reason we cannot do.
7.Regarding EFSA which for some reason has become an issue for the user "Jytdog": Please note that this is what EFSA has written to us on this matter: EFSA, as the European Union risk assessor, is responsible for providing scientific advice to European Union risk managers (i.e. the European Commission, the Member States and the European Parliament). Please note that EFSA is not involved in any regulatory process which is initiated on the basis of an EFSA opinion. Decisions regarding the authorization of health claims, including the final wording and the authorized conditions of use/restrictions of use, are ultimately taken by risk managers (i.e. the Commission and Member States), and not EFSA. Since the application was withdrawn- the fact that an application was initiated may the reason be whatever they were, does not mean that the “EFSA rejected the application” it just gave an opinion, which has no regulatory standing. You are more than welcome to ask the EFSA Nutrition Unit if this is not the case.
8.Based on all the above, we request that either we are allowed to insert all the up to date scientific data without it being deleted. The data is straightforward information that was published in medical journals, or that this entry be removed altogether as this entry is maliciously targeted by a very motivated person with a not so pure agenda, may his seniority be what it may.
Thank you. Corin at Secure (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corin, oh Corin. I and others have been trying to tell you how Wikipedia works - how we source content per WP:MEDRS and we cannot use the primary sources you want to use to talk about how great Femarelle is. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. About your point about the EFSA - that is OK and I just updated the article to simply quote the EFSA findings. Overall, I am sorry you are disappointed, but you have not taken enough time to understand this place. This is what can happen sometimes when an editor has a COI - getting their content into WP is more important than understanding what kind of content is OK here. I am sorry that you don't want to learn. In any case, more relevant to what you are doing here, discussions about deleting articles, are based on the criteria described in WP:NOTABILITY which is policy. None of your reasons speak to those criteria. There are three MEDRS-compliant secondary sources that discuss Femarelle, and that is probably enough to meet the notability criteria. But I will not !vote here. We can both see what the community has to say. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - procedural close. Nominator does not make any valid reason for deletion. I don't believe this topic fails notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Content dispute is not a valid reason to pursue AfD. -KH-1 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. It is a shame that Corin has failed to understand that we rely on Reliable Sources to build content for wikipedia, in this case WP:MEDRS applies. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per above. Notability remains questionable, but article is much-improved from its earlier, more promotional versions. Reasons given by nominator do not support deletion, and item #8 seems to dictate terms for non-deletion, contrary to Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Wikipedia is not a press-release service, and is under no obligation to keep an article in a state dictated by an outside entity. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Procedural Close per Wikimandia above. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KH-1. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent feuds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A list of trivial WP:FANCRUFT. Koala15 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft, per Koala. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just no. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's nothing but nonsense. IPadPerson (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's all referenced and sourced. It's A-Okay. The page needs to be kept. 75.129.230.8 (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom shouldn't of withdrawn - Pointless article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; completely useless trivia. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn Non admin closure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call (video game)[edit]

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

I don't see this game as having any notability. My search for sources came up totally dry. Web result only allow me to confirm that this is not a hoax. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I found these: [39] and [40]. Ana r chyte 12:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchyte's sources. Those are both pretty mainstream video game websites - both considered reliable per consensus at WP:VG/S. I'd find it very hard to believe that there aren't more out there to round it out. Article needs a complete rewrite though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the in-depth Gamasutra article and GameSpot review that Anarchyte listed, there is an IGN review: [41], Game Revolution Review: [42], Archived All Gamer Guide Synopsis page: [43], Archived All Gamer Guide Review: [44], and GameRankings review score based on 10 reviews: [45]. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well fuck. This is why you don't ask me to do research. Consider this one withdrawn. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Tropical Fruit Farm[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find any significant coverage for this fruit farm. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More references have been added to the article, add more information (detail features of the farm, opening date, owner, management), add another photo of the farm, create its wiki common category page, add to another article category. Chongkian (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but I don't think the sources establish notability, 2 of the 5 sources merely confirm size of the farm. this is a primary source (the farm's own website) and this is a promotional website. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another 2 notable references, one from the local city council & another from Bernama (malaysia news agency). Chongkian (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please note references are not "notable". I translated this article, it's about the durian festival held at the farm but doesn't establish notabliity for the farm. the local government link is merely a listing of what the farm does. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added another 2 references from Utusan Online (Malay language). Chongkian (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative and regretful delete but possibly draft/userfy instead as my searches found no good coverage even in the slightest and a few articles mention this such as Sungai Udang. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is the farm doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Added another reference from The Star Online (English). Chongkian (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- does not meet the GNG because all the coverage is passing mentions and run-of-the-mill stuff. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to NewVantage Partners. It's a little bit of a stretch to say there's a consensus for merge, but it's either that or flat-out delete. I leave it up to normal editorial discretion to determine how much material to merge and what to leave behind. In any case, leave a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bean[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as the secondary sources quoted are either written by Bean himself, or quote him only briefly in passing. McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, sources are either by Bean or have a mere mention of him. LaMona (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page shouldn't be deleted for the reason that Randy Bean has become one of the most sought after authors and commentators on the topic of Big Data and its impact on business culture in an Information Age. Independent third-party citations have been provided from popular columns in the Wall Street Journal, MIT Sloan Management Review, Harvard Business Review, and quotes from other objective industry sources — Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Dauntless23, you are the creator of this article, so I offer this: your sources do not meet the requirements for reliable sources. For example, sources 1-5, 13-15 are BY the subject, not about him. Those aren't appropriate. Other sources have a single quote (eg #6) or a single mention of him. Those are not enough to establish notability. Sources like linkedin are not reliable. Also, you have some links to searches (WSJ, HBR, etc.]. You need to reference individual articles, not searches. The point is not quantity, but of having sources that verify the content of the article. There probably is enough to establish notability, but the sourcing needs to meet WP's policies. As an example, the article in Raconteur is the kind of resource that is needed, and others should be removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, LaMona. I have taken what you have said and made the necessary changes. Hopefully it is sufficiently sourced to pass now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources added to the article since its AfD are a book which only appears to credit Bean for a single interview in a small footnote, and another four secondary articles where Bean is quoted in passing, but which tell us nothing about him as a person except the company he works for. WP:BASIC explicitly says that "John Smith at Big Company said..." sources are not strong enough to support notability by themselves. --McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGeddon, please look through all of the citations. Several of the sources are lengthy interviews with prominent publications (2, 3, and 4). Please advise what else is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauntless23 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are considered to be BY the person, not ABOUT the person because it is the person himself speaking. So they are not considered reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They can be reliable, they're just considered primary sources per WP:NEWSPRIMARY, and per WP:BASIC "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (I don't mean just redirect, but actually merge some of the information) to NewVantage Partners. The company is probably notable but its article could use some expansion, such as adding more about the founders. Virtually every link at this article, except for two confirming his membership in things, consists of "Randy Bean of NewVantage Partners said..." This type of reference does not contribute to the notability of the person speaking; it does demonstrate that NewVantage Partners is the only thing he is known for. There seems to be nothing written ABOUT him, which is the definition of WP:GNG. What little biographical information the article has is completely unsourced. User:Dauntless23, you have tried hard, but if sources written ABOUT him do not exist, the best you can hope for is to have some information about him at the NewVantage Partners article, keeping his name as a redirect to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Because of a comment at another article about Bean being co-author of a "seminal paper", I searched Google Scholar to see if he might pass WP:ACADEMIC. He does not. That one paper, on which he was a co-author, has been cited 119 times; his only other paper was cited 7 times; this is not enough to establish him as a "thought leader in his field" under the criteria for academics and scholars. --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. possible conflict of interest editing. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to NewVantage Partners, which will enhance and improve the latter article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Dutra Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He lacks the three top tier fights necessary to meet WP:NMMA. In addition, all of the coverage of him is merely routine sports reporting which is not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papaursa (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per nominator - loosing record and released from UFC - chance of third top tier fight minimal.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. If he gets a third top tier fight the article can be recreated.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to FC Arsenal Kyiv. The same outcome results if IP opinions are discounted. Sandstein 21:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FC Arsenal Kiev (1925)[edit]

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

Fails notability, No reference, External Link is dead Brudder Andrusha (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FC Arsenal Kyiv, which it is a duplicate of. matt91486 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: Actually FC Arsenal Kyiv has a section "Early history" which covers this article. Wouldn't Merge and Delete be better? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not duplicate. This team existed in 1925-1964, played in the Soviet Cup and the Championship of the Ukrainian SSR. Also winners of the Cup of the Ukrainian SSR (1954, 1955) under the name of FC Mashynobudivnyk Kyiv. Played in the lower divisions (Group B) of the Soviet Championship in 1960s. Disbanded in 1964. The new FC Arsenal Kyiv was created in 2001 and has no any relation to the 1925-1964 team. Dead link is fixed. 178.92.48.71 (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Giving one link from the Arsenal-Kyiv website is not enough which is not an independent source. There are no English links. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same external link is used for early history in article FC Arsenal Kyiv, hence WP:Duplicates. 192.176.1.95 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already refered to (albeit poorly) in the article FC Arsenal Kyiv. 192.176.1.95 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. As noted already in FC Arsenal Kyiv. WP:REDUNDANTFORK 69.248.91.120 (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To admins: 192.176.1.95 and 69.248.91.120 are IP of BrudderAndrusha, see their similar contribution. Please strike out his second and third voting. He did try to change links from FC Arsenal-Kyiv (new team) to FC Arsenal Kyiv (old team). [46] [47] This is a disruptive nomination, see also Talk:FC Arsenal Kyiv. They are all different teams. WP:FOOTY/Notability says: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) played in the 1936 Soviet Cup. Therefore, this club is notable enough. 46.200.31.84 (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, ru-wiki and uk-wiki have separate articles about this 1925-1964 Arsenal club, see uk:Темп (Київ) and ru:Темп (футбольный клуб, Киев). Name history: 1925-1951 Arsenal, 1951-1959 Mashynobudivnyk, 1959-1964 Arsenal (again), since 1964 Temp (amauters). Maybe rename to FC Temp Kyiv (teams' last name before withdrew)? 46.200.31.84 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent references that the team competed in the 1930 Soviet Cup. The team completed in the minor leagues. Even more reason to delete the article and merge it into FC Arsenal Kyiv since there are so many variations of the team name. And this is a reason for an article? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many independent references about the fact of FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) competed in the first (1936) Soviet Cup: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. Also it played in the 1950s (and 1960s) Soviet Cups. Best result is Last 32 stage in 1959-1960. The team was defunct since 1964, therefore FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) (or Temp, or Mashynobudivnyk) and FC Arsenal Kyiv (created in 2001 by another people, 37 years after!!) are absolutely different teams. No reason for deletion, no reason for merging. 46.200.31.84 (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[inconsistent]} All the references indicate that the different versions of the team have been inherited by FC Arsenal Kyiv. Whoever updated the History of this club FC Arsenal Kiev (1925) is using the same link and historical information for the FC Arsenal Kyiv article which has been around much longer. If that is used as a reliable source for both articles then both teams are the same. Hence delete this article and merge it into FC Arsenal Kyiv. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to FC Arsenal Kyiv - no reliable sources to confirm this is a separate club. If some can be found, it could be kept (providing it did play in the national cup as claimed). Giant Snowman 17:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See five links above about their participation in the 1936 Soviet Cup. Do you want to say, a Soviet team disestablished in 1964 and Ukrainian team created in 2001 are the same club? Club did not exist 37 years. Different players, different people, different champioships. Separate aricles exist in ru-wiki and uk-wiki. This sources [53] [54] clearly says, in 1964 the club was diseastablished. 46.200.31.84 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the article uses text from the current web's site about its history and links the 1925 from the Logo, with the name FC Arsenal Kyiv. So just because you don't accept that it's the same club - The club is very clear in its history that the team of this article is a continuation of many different variations from 1925 is one in the same. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the information is duplicated in FC Arsenal Kyiv. 69.118.104.160 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - Agree with OP and @GiantSnowman:. The sources were nonexistant before the AfD. The source provided is also used in the current club article Arsenal Kyiv. 75.99.139.84 (talk)
Keep. Multiple voting of Brudder Andrusha detected. 94.248.11.100 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of references added after AfD initiated Not surprisingly out of the woodwork edits have been made to prop up the article. Nonetheless the references do not add any conviction that the article should not be deleted.

(in Russian) http://www.fc-dynamo.ru/cup/rezult.php?gd=1936 Протоколы кубка 1936 года - In Russian the results of the 1936 Cup. The team name is Арсенал (Киев) translated as Arsenal (Kyiv) which is also claimed by the club FC Arsenal Kyiv as part of their history. Hence WP:DUPLICATE.
(in Russian) http://fc-dynamo.ru/cup/prot.php?id=2100 Кубок СССР 1936. 1936 год. 18 июля - 18 June 1936 USSR Cup - Team list of team that played. Reference used is from an article that has also been added since the AfD started used as an External Site reference. That reference dated from 18 January 2011 connects the team that competed in the game with the FC Arsenal Kyiv with the Logo of the Team and the with the statement (in Russian) Но все же в нынешнем своем названии команда появилась уже в советское время — 86 лет назад translated as "Yet in its present team name appeared in the Soviet time - 86 years ago".
(in Russian) http://aegov.narod.ru/history/sssr/1936v/36kup.htm 1-й розыгрыш. - 1st Round is duplicate of the first reference
(in Russian) http://wildstat.ru/p/2002/ch/URS_CUP_1936/stg/all/tour/all Кубок СССР 1936 - 1936 USSR Cup is duplicate of the first reference
http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/su36.html#36c Soviet Union Cup 1936 - English translation of the first article. Team again is the Russian translated version of FC Arsenal Kiev which is a REDIRECT.

External links added:

(in Russian) http://arsenal-kyiv.com/page/club История киевского «Арсенала» - History of "Arsenal" Kyiv The current variant of the club documents that the club was formed in 1925 and that it was reborn in 2001

Через 37-м лет клуб пережил свое второе рождение. В 2001 году после окончания первого круга Чемпионата Украины по футболу 2001/02, Киевский городской совет по предложению тогдашнего мэра Киева Александра Омельченко принял решение от 18 декабря 2001 о создании ООО ФК «Арсенал». Этот момент в истории столичного клуба стал новой ступенью в возрождении былых «арсенальских» традиций в Киеве.

Translated: After the 37th year the club has experienced a rebirth. In 2001, after the end of the first round of Ukrainian Football Championship 2001/02, the Kyiv City Council on the proposal of the then mayor of Kyiv Alexander Omelchenko it was decided on 18 December 2001 of the establishment of FC "Arsenal". This moment in the history of the capital club became a new step in the revival of old "Arsenal" traditions in Kyiv.

Had these reference given at least a rejection of this historical linkage between all variants of the club then there would be no reason to delete. There is nothing added in the new links of significance that would clearly address that this article worthy of having its own entry. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The club has been noted as the same from official sources. 23.30.103.229 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two articles using the same historical reference and this one repeats what's on the other. 173.12.4.54 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, both references in the article say it is the same club. There are no sources saying otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - evidence that this is a duplication fork appears compelling. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tempest[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A full obituary in the Daily Telegraph equates to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded it to make the notability clearer. Among the other points of interest are that he participated in the final raid on Germany by Bomber Command of the Second World War, being awarded the DFC not long after. Given the expansion, I wonder if the nominator would like to withdraw the nomination? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Being interesting or participating in interesting events do not satisfy the notability requirements, IMO. The Telegraph obituary is the only significant source. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a significant source, not the only source, and he participated in a significant military event as mentioned in WP:SOLDIER and won a high award for valour. Which part of the GNG "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" do you dispute? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Necrothesp and Philafrenzy make strong arguments. Edwardx (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; we generally keep people with obituaries in reliale sources. Yes, those sources sometimes are inconsistent in who they choose to cover, but there's very little point in trying to argue about the nuances of that. Just leave it, it's well sourced, it's not a problem. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my concerns:

Doesn't anybody else find it very odd that no newspaper other than the Telegraph published his obituary? The Royal Institute of Navigation one looks to be just a condensed version of the Telegraph's; there is no additional information and many of the phrases are the same. The third reference is for a minor point. The fourth, a short obituary by the de Havilland Aircraft Museum, notes that he was a " long time supporter of the museum", which makes it a less-than-independent source. Other than the obituary, he doesn't seem to have left much of a trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph did notice him though and they thought he was significant enough to write about at length. This would have appeared in the paper and electronic versions by the way. The Telegraph have a specialism in military obituaries for service people overlooked by other papers and their contacts with the UK armed services are probably stronger even than those of The Times. They never give their sources but I would think they assembled the obituary from those contacts and the numerous offline newsletters and publications of ex-services societies. It's a pity we can't access those. I believe that Tempest was also active in advising on military books which may additionally have brought him to their attention. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think it a very bad idea to try to second guess the motivations of the obituary writers. Better just to leave them do their thing and cite them. Having reliably sourced biographies of deceased persons of minor significance is not a major problem with Wikipedia. On the other hand getting into a minor huff over the existence of said articles is however rather unnecessary. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would I have considered him to be notable without the obit? No, definitely not. Junior officer with a single third-level decoration. No chance of meeting WP:SOLDIER. However, the fact that a major national newspaper, whose notability criteria for obits are far more stringent than ours for articles, did consider him to be notable is enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]