< 7 June	9 June >

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

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

Getitkeepit.com[edit]

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

Flash-in-the-pan tech startup that appears to have gone under quickly without making any impact. The domain is now for sale.

All sources are about taking funding or hiring someone. While this technically may satisfy GNG, it seems to fly in the face of its intent. The Dissident Aggressor 21:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete and draft to willing user's userspace - Granted the article is neat and sourced which is something you won't always see but there doesn't seem to be much past the current. My searches here, here and here found nothing significant and Books seems to have found results for other things, not this. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real impact. Many websites have come and gone. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the website is no longer even active.Quirinus X (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they appear to have gone out of business. Snappy (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth as a hoax(non-admin closure). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 June 2015‎

I'm sorry friend[edit]

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

No reliable source coverage, and in fact, there is very little independent source coverage, which is not at all what would be expected for a film featuring such well-known actors as is claimed in the article. Everymorning talk 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could probably be speedied as a hoax. I cannot find any info about the film by itself or on any of the actors "upcoming films" lists. I also could not find a film director named Michael Lim. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry friend, but this fails WP:N and WP:V. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article, nor to even verify its existence. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. No sources provided. Tinton5 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My friend "ana" is not a party! Hoax/vandalism. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:V in all ways. I've tagged is for a speedy as a hoax. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 1st Japan Tour[edit]

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

The article about a band's tour is basically just a setlist and list of tour dates. I don't think it qualifies for a standalone article per WP:NTOUR. Random86 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also don't see enough for a stand alone article the page has very little substance and all these concerts happened awhile ago. Seems to be another page created for the sake of having a page.Peachywink (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Peachywink Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Majors and Programs[edit]

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

This seems to be the sort of over-detailed, self-sourced/unsourced university information that would be best to remain on the university's website, rather than duplicated on Wikipedia. I can't see any reason for it to be here (the same could be said for some of the other fork articles from University of Maryland, Baltimore County). I would have been bold and redirected to the main article, but this has been on Wikipedia for a long time so may warrant a community decision. In my view this is an excessive fork and, at best, should be very selectively merged to the main article. Sionk (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP is not a web hosting site. Furthermore, the information is always already obsolete, probably. Most colleges do revisions of their majors and programs every year. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog or directory. If you want this information, you're much better off going to the official college website. This is far too detailed and if it's covered in 3rd-party sources it'll only be in directories and catalogs. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous comments. An encyclopedia article should in no way resemble a course catalog, school website, or department directory. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:BEFORE should have been done. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration[edit]

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

No references, barely a dictionary definition Bfpage |leave a message 20:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is covered in depth in numerous book sources. For instance,
- Glenn's Urologic Surgery
- Fertility Cryopreservation
- Clinical Andrology
- Microsurgery for Fertility Specialists
- plus numerous scholarly papers [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

The nominator should be ashamed of herself for not doing even a cursory WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. Sources include [10], among others. As per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. There's a vast difference between the actual notability of this topic relative to its presumed non-notability per a lack of sources in the article when it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - ~~Now passes GNG.~~ –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Actually, the topic has passed GNG for a long time. Topic notability is based upon source availability, and not upon the state of sourcing in articles. See WP:NRVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 - Perhaps I'm misunderstanding here but there was no sources prior to nomination so how could it have passed GNG if no sources were there?, It doesn't take a lot to confuse me you know

. –Davey2010^Talk 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Read the first line at WP:GNG (bold emphasis mine), "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note that the guideline says "topic", rather than article, and refers to topics in general. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh that's where I've been going wrong - I was reading it as article for some reason

, Ah well thanks for explaining :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty to say about this procedure, and plenty of reliable sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be speedy closed. SpinningSpark 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus was that there is insufficient coverage from Reliable Sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blogs and forums are not Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblopnik[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this website. Google returns 83 hits, none of them independent with substantial coverage. The ones I thought might have coverage all turned out to be social media discussions. I speedied this a week ago when it was created. It was deleted, but then restored with a reprieve based on representations that the article would be improved to show notability. It isn't been. Then I PRODded it. Someone removed the PROD tag, while assuring me on my talk page that the site is notable, and leaving an edit summary saying he was going to add info showing as much, but all that's been added so far is a claim to that effect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:WEBCRIT, per several source searches. Sources discussing the topic are limited to blogs and forums (e.g. [11], [12], [13]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I wrote to Largo:

Looking at the Wikpiedpia guidelines for notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list... Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability... The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability... The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition...."

I believe Autoblopnik.com meets these requirements. It has received coverage in several independent sources, including major car sites such as Jalopik, GM Authority, Autobytel, and MichiganRadio.org; major automotive forums including Bimmerpost, Allpar, VW Vortex, Jeepforum, and Tesla Motors Club; and numerous (though less significant) blogs and forums. It has been cited by Jack Baruth, editor of TTAC and contributor to Motor Trend and references to the site show up in comments posted to Autoblog, Jalopnik, and The Truth About Cars. And all of this is in addition to the social media discussions you cite (assuming you're talking about Gawker Media's Oppositelock, where the site is promoted by the owner and talked about by other readers).

Therefore, I believe the site meets the Wikipedia requirements for notability: It has received significant independent coverage and recognition in reliable sources independent of itself, and there is verifiable, objective evidence to support that. Though the citations in the article may not properly reflect this, the guidelines are clear that "poor... referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability," therefore instant improvements to the article should not be necessary. Rather, the article should be given time to be found by other Wikipedia users with an interest in the subject so they may continue to improve and evolve it.

Based on all that, I respectfully submit that the proposal of deletion should be removed. I believe I am allowed to do this myself, I'll wait a little while for discussion (assuming no one beats me to it).

Thanks for taking the time to read. Gearhead4847 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed your comments above. It's ironic that you're thanking people for taking the time to read what you've written, while not having the courtesy yourself to read what's already been written in response, at least not enough to understand that the arguments you're repeating here have already been dispensed with.

I took your analysis into account in my introduction to this discussion. "Someone removed the PROD tag, while assuring me on my talk page that the site is notable, and leaving an edit summary saying he was going to add info showing as much, but all that's been added so far is a claim to that effect." On your talk page where you previously posted the above, I replied to you that forums aren't reliable sources. I also told you that "My proposal wasn't based on poor referencing within the article: as I said, I did my own research." I also drew your attention to WP:CRYSTAL, about how Wikipedia doesn't carry articles in anticipation of the subject's future attainment of notability.

By the way, you ought to have removed the sentence beginning "Based on all that", because it applied only to the proposed deletion that you were originally responding to. You aren't allowed to cancel a deletion discussion yourself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there, Largo, I read your reply, I simply pasted it over here since this is where the discussion is taking place. I'm aware that I can't cancel the deletion.

Regarding forums: I agree that a forum is not necessarily a reliable source for information. But would discussion on forums not indicate that a subject is notable? We're talking about a site with a specific area of focus (cars). Are we not looking to see that the subject has garnered attention? Gearhead4847 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gearhead4847: In the event you're not aware of it, check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which provides an exceptional overview about the reliability of various sources and the use of sources for Wikipedia's purposes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry you thought it was a claim, Largo. I get what you're saying, though--Wiki needs more solid evidence than "I'm in this industry and we laugh at this guy's stuff." Here's some of the third-party sites that have covered/linked to/discuss Autoblopnik's stuff outside of forums that should satisfy what Wiki wants to see regarding outside coverage: http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-tire-blowout-causes-media-frenzy/ http://jalopnik.com/car-satire-site-autoblopnik-just-rehashed-a-press-relea-464854032 http://buildraceparty.com/found-on-the-web-autoblopnik/ http://gmauthority.com/blog/2014/09/autoblopnik-satirically-explains-slow-cadillac-sales/ Plus an Autoblopnik syndication on Autobytel: http://www.autobytel.com/car-buying-guides/features/autoblopnik-s-guide-to-green-cars-120061/ And here's the big incident where The Economist accidentally took them as truth: http://jalopnik.com/the-economist-accidentally-plagiarizes-from-parody-car-815742777 http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/07/diesels (see note at bottom where they admit to getting fooled)

There's no need to be rude to the other guy arguing that it's notable, IMHO. It looks like he is trying to wrap his head around Wikipedia's rules, and he's not only mentioning forums in his response. The non-forum sites he mentioned are fairly decent/reliable automotive-related sources that I'd feel okay about linking back to in any other work.

Admittedly, Autoblopnik writes about and to a smaller industry that non-car-people tend to shun, but within the industry, it gets decent press. I'm not as familiar with how to cite this for Wikipedia's rules, so I'll leave it be, I guess. I will say that the site is notable enough for a page, though. 66.90.154.65 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't taking issue with his arguing that the site is notable. My focus was on the disregard he was showing for all of you when he reposted his arguments without indicating that many of them had already been responded to, possibly covering ground that you would wind up spending your time, effort, and thought into covering from scratch if you didn't know someone else had done so already. It would have been different if he'd said that he'd already received some answers, but wanted to follow up on those. His omission of that detail amounted to WP:FORUMSHOPping. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: you may wish to look at the contribution history of the IP Special:Contributions/66.90.154.65 LaMona (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No disregard intended, Largo, this is the first time I've participated in a discussion like this, so I assumed it was best a) to get everything in one spot and b) to repost exactly rather than change my story on the fly. I'm a journalist, so that's the way it struck me to do things (and I figured others would copy in their own conversations if need be). So if I took a mis-step, I apologize, it certainly wasn't intentional. (I'm new around these parts.) Gearhead4847 (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: Sniff Petrol referred to Autoblopnik as "Sniff's American Cousin" (though it was on social media). Perhaps there is a connection. I added that tidbit to the article. https://twitter.com/sniffpetrol/status/608331694324764672 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearhead4847 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. LaMona (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List_of_eating_utensils#Combination_utensils, where it is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chork[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, all sources seem to be paid content and part of the same introductory media blitz, previously deleted 2007 Apr 23 Dalamori (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List_of_eating_utensils#Combination_utensils for now where it can be mentioned. The article is a bit interesting but, unfortunately, it hasn't gotten as much attention as it could be, a few results at News through the years but nothing at Books with a few results at highbeam and one at thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per suggestion - only persistent coverage seems to be mention of a restaurant that calls itself the "home of the chork" —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A trade term patterned on the "spork." Redirecting is validating the company's commercial aims of increasing product placement and awareness. It is also validating their view that there have never been chopstick-forks before. Delete as commercial promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that it's not the first chopstick-fork of that design (as opposed to chopsticks with little forks on the end), then please add it to Wikipedia. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the burden of the article, as it's an extraordinary claim? More particularly, it's a marketing claim. Even if it were true -- if no individual person had nowhere and no time made an invention predating this -- preserving a commercial marketing claim is not the business of Wikipedia. Preserving the competitive advantage by redirect seems to violate the reasoning behind no advertising. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. It's clearly got some press, but not the sort of lasting in-depth coverage that merits an article. I'm sure there's some sort of history to be written of attempts to combine chopsticks and western cutlery, but maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1572 Posnania[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: uncertain about this one; there's a dedicated photometry study[14] and a few mentions elsewhere. Praemonitus (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. I only found one in-depth study of this body [15] and another group study that confirmed the findings of the first one [16]. But the first study is only about this asteroid and models its shape, not just its spin. So we have one in-depth source but I'd like to have more than one before keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike wasserman[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. A member of a county board of supervisors, whose press coverage does not exceed the normal local coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Someone offer him a capital letter for his last name, please. I assume he's not e.e. cummings. The article has local press references, but it also offers nebulous material (programs for housing the homeless. . . and these are of what sort? as one doubts that he's truly the only county politician to make proposals along those lines). A local pol. who isn't being discussed for statewide office yet. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine local press only, and no reason to expect anything more. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Santa Clara County is the Capitol of Silicon Valley and home to 2 million residents which makes local government office a bigger deal than in some other areas. All 4 other Board of Supervisor members have been allowed to have pages, following the same Wikipedia guidelines. This page completes a missing piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Yeager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cortese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Chavez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Simitian — Preceding Epsanford comment added by Epsanford (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All four of those people make some other claim of notability, separate from the Santa Clara County council, that satisfies a different notability criterion. Their presence doesn't extend a notability freebie to other colleagues who can't make their own standalone claim to satisfying one of our inclusion rules on their own steam. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, which makes no allowance for members of county boards of supervisors regardless of the size of the county. That leaves WP:GNG, but all I could find in a search was routine local coverage. The references on the page consist of two listings at the county government site, one campaign website, one op-ed written BY him, and one interview by a nonprofit organization whose cause he sympathizes with. In other words not a single Independent Reliable Source. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1908 Pobeda[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources found to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1986 Plaut[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: unfortunately the results are conflated with a widely cited work by author 1986. I scanned through the listings on Google scholar, but only found one bulk study that displayed a single row of data on this minor planet.[17] Praemonitus (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1990 Pilcher[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar, other than a bunch of references to a 1995 work by Pilcher. Praemonitus (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 - I never usually close on no !votes but 9 times outta 10 those that don't get !voted on end up being redirected after 3 relists anyway so may aswell speed it up - If anyone disagrees leave me a message & I'll reopen. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Pikelner[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. - I never usually close on no !votes but 9 times outta 10 those that don't get !voted on end up being redirected after 3 relists anyway so may aswell speed it up - If anyone disagrees leave me a message & I'll reopen. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1515 Perrotin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. - I never usually close on no !votes but 9 times outta 10 those that don't get !voted on end up being redirected after 3 relists anyway so may aswell speed it up - If anyone disagrees leave me a message & I'll reopen. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1667 Pels[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1629 Pecker[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: not much found on Google scholar; unable to establish notability per WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1314 Paula[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: I see one photometry study and a pair of possible mentions in a couple of other papers, but I don't think it's enough. Praemonitus (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One group lightcurve study [18] isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swartz Creek Area Fire Department[edit]

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

Nothing whatsoever to indicate any notability. The existence of a self published book says nothing John from Idegon (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Swartz Creek Area Fire Department is notable as it was a private fire department that was force to turn its assets over to the local governments as being illegal then ran as a multiple government department. The Swartz Creek Area Fire Department is not the publisher of Going Up the Swartz book that is sourced. Spshu (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mlive.com/Flint Journal, a regional newspaper, has several articles on Swartz Creek Area Fire Department. Some now included from the Flint Journal in the article covers regional instructor award given to chief and the unusual three generations serving the same department. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not say the fire department published the book. I said it was self published. Last time I looked, the Swartz Creek Bicentennial Commission is not a publishing company. Hence, the book was self published and worthless as a source to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment. Self published in that sense would mean that Yutha Hayes, the author, was also the publisher as I understand that proviso. Being a "publishing" company isn't a criteria, else broadcasting company news unit websites would be self publishing too. That might rule out publishing arms of universities or publishers owned by larger media companies. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small town fire department. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although some decently referenced content has been added, it is trivial, and it has all come from the local area and does nothing to satisfy WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. There was one story that hit the wire and got picked up in Ludington about a fire, but stories on fire departments fighting fires do not show their notability either. All fire departments fight fires. That is what they are supposed to do. And I'm sorry you are not getting this, but self published simply means not published by a publishing house. Your arguments are red herrings. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have seen a article fly through AfD with only a single self source (they source the organization's website) with the addition of some vague claim of large membership numbers.It help if you can read, the Ludington Daily News article which was by the AP. Which means it was a national available article was not about a fire but the fire station being hit by a tornado. Not a single article sourced in the article as is are not about fighting fire. I did get your self publish point, but it also covers websites. Just because you are not getting this, WP:USERGENERATED : "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Making up that the articles added are just about fighting fire with out reading them are red herrings. IDHT doesn't mean that I cannot bring up a new source to show notability, that would be stomping round getting mad about the outcome here after this discussion is closed. Spshu (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request. If consensus is for deletion, I request that the article be move to my sandbox space or allowed to copy over info to Swartz Creek, Michigan article.Spshu (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local organization, no coverage outside the county. Kraxler (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Ludington, Michigan, thus Ludington Daily News, is in Mason County, Michigan on the west side of the state, not Genesee County, Michigan where Swartz Creek is located. The article was generated by the Associated Press, a national organization. The article covers significantly the department as its then only fire station (hall) was hit and destroyed, etc. Spshu (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article published in the Ludington Daily News has exactly ~~one~~ three sentences which mention that the Swartz Creek fire hall was destroyed. The article reports at length about a tornado hitting the city of Swartz Creek, it does not discuss in any way the fire department per se. Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Corrected. Kraxler (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Fire department has three paragraphs, the second that has the single sentence mention the hall was hit then paragraphs 6 and 7 continue about the damage done. Paragraph 6 indicated via the Fire Chief that no personnel was hurt given no one was inside the building while paragraph 7 goes on about equipment damage. The Fire department is personnel, building and equipment (etc), so that is per se. Effectively, the department could have not been operational depending on the damage to the fire trucks in its then only hall. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the tornado had hit the supermarket next-door, then that would have become notable? Sorry, but I suggest you try to understand what the difference is between a "trivial mention" and "in-depth coverage" according to WP:CORPDEPTH. The article does not discuss the department (history, organizational structure, attitude, past events) but reports about a weather occurrence in a certain place, trivially mentioning the presence of the subject of this article. Kraxler (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you need to reread that WP:CORPDEPTH as the article does not meet any of the trivial coverage criteria as the article's content was not a schedule, a directory listing, routine, brief nor a passing mention. It has four sentences in three paragraphs, which is not a passing mention. Spshu (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closer of this discussion should assess who is right here. Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources; most, if not all the sources only mention the SCAFD in passing. Would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Ghostwheel ʘ 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Was not histmerged because it appears that B2Project actually copied from the one that was kept to the one that was redirected. Anything that was on the article was standard templated content. Being that B2Project didn't know the other page existed he couldn't have copy paste moved it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Pittsburgh Penguins season[edit]

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

Duplicate...followed same format as previous years but article already exists –B2Project^(Talk) 18:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, it turns out that the articles are not duplicates but 2015–16 Pittsburgh Pengiuns season this article is spelled wrong...not sure how to go about this. –B2Project^(Talk) 18:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I boldly redirected the other article (2015–16 Pittsburgh Pengiuns season) to this one, since this is the one with the correctly-spelled title. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment. This is a cut-and-paste page move. An admin can fix this with a histmerge once this AfD is settled. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I recommend keeping the correct spelling article and merging the misspelled article with this one.–B2Project^(Talk) 11:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Thompson (blogger)[edit]

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

Maybe time for this article to go, not improved after 3 and half years. I'm not convinced an award to a Liberal Democrat by Liberal Democrat Voice is a convincingly claim of general notability. As for his occasional appearances (and article in) the press, they're by him but not abouthim. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His coverage is not enough to pass GNG, and the award being a best new of the year award for a specified group, does not come off as major.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - It seems the award is the best thing holding this and my searches found this (Books) which was the best result aside from links for the award and finally Highbeam and Thefreelibrary both found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honest Trailers episodes[edit]

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

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

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

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

This list is simply non-notable. The series itself may be notable, but there is no reason to have a list of every single episode. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search for 'Honest trailers' will show that I could add multiple reliable sources covering just about every episode in this list. There have additionally been sources discussing the group or set (per WP:LISTN) such as this and this which cover the 50th and 100th episodes. Though such sources don't include enough information for a full article on Honest Trailers as a show, I think enough is written at Screen Junkies to justify also having a list for the episodes, which receive just as much coverage as most television episodes. Sam Walton (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I love the Honest Trailer series, but I also know that I can find a list of the trailers at the Screen Junkies site. The Screen Junkies article is the place for discussion of breakthrough trailers, and a listing of all the trailers is an informational burden that just isn't part of the site's remit. (WP not a web guide.) Hithladaeus (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - episodes are the basic 'chunks' which make up a series. The main article on the series seems to have gotten too long to read comfortably, and so the episode list was split out. Episode lists are commonly acceptable for many other series, and to delete a listing of the series' episodes would diminish the encyclopedia's coverage of Honest Trailers. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Setting precedent, many other entertainment shows from TV/Internet all have similar lists and even statistics. The fact that other shows have statistical information about them such as Survivor, Amazing Race, and even ####'s Got Talent shows have large pages with this interesting statistics is sets a precedents of the subject of Game Show Wikipedia Pages. It's oppression of information relating to the shows and in a effort to deliver complete and accurate show information from a production company this should be warranted and appropriate!
While I agree the "Screen Junkies" page is not a page in which statistical information about their productions and episodes should be held, separate linked pages about their individual shows MUST be allowed to exist. Related pages to a production company brings people who are interested in one show to other shows they may enjoy, is this not a function of a list in the first place. For that reason I vote Keep. I would also extend that all Screen Junkies productions be granted their own page as sub articles related linked from the main Screen Junkies page. This means bringing back the Screen_Junkies_Movie_Fights page. 216.118.223.9 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This poster above has a point, many shows have Wiki pages with lists of their episodes. Game and competition shows have their stats shown on their pages. I don't see why Screen Junkies shows is being singled out, and for such a flimsy reason. I'd agree that the main page for Screen Junkies shouldn't have episode or stats on it. So having linked dedicated pages for episodes and stats should be allowed. SencneS (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC) — SencneS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - relevent sources highlighted. I will just note this tagging was made as a response to an email sent in to the OTRS team. Mdann52 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Farmakopoulos[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax article. From a look online, I can find absolutely nothing related to him at all, other than the usual mirrors etc. While I appreciate that not everything can be found online, I'd prefer some sources to confirm this as opposed to nothing. Mdann52 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He may not be the most well known artist but he is well know in the relevant art circles in Greece. A search on the Greek language Google brings up the following links:

- http://www.artingreece.gr/artnews.php?ID=145
- http://artcatalogue.asfa.gr/adlib/site/index_html?term=%CE%A6%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%82+%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%82&submit=%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%B6%CE%AE%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7&search=simple_search
- http://search.lib.auth.gr/Record/1016598
- Listing in the National Gallery of Greece: http://85.72.36.238/catmining/Record/10046857
- Reference to him in the mention of one of Farmakopoulos' students: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=14262747645&story_fbid=10151917416572646
- Another student of his mentioning Farmakopoulos: http://www.pasya.gr/el/%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%B9%CE%BF%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%B9/87-%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%B4%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%8D%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%9B%CE%B5%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B1.html
- Museum that has his artwork: http://www.euarce.com/about.html (see the bottom)
- Mention in a major Athens newspaper: http://www.kathimerini.gr/687877/opinion/epikairothta/arxeio-monimes-sthles/eikones-apo-to-parel8on--ta-magazia-ths-synoikias-sthn-pinako8hkh-yyxarh-36

Therefore, the question on whether he existed or not is answered. --Kimon^talk 17:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fountainhead School[edit]

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

Possibly copyvio and advertising. I notice it's already been deleted G11 and G12, and I'm not sure if there's much here worth saving. Adam9007 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Earwig suspects copyvio. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising: Dynamic graduates! Exciting! Will be the largest! Started from humble beginnings (which is kind of the definition of beginnings)! A school that started in 2008 and thus will matriculate its first full class in a year. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -I have removed almost all the details which could identify this as an advert. It was further cleaned by Necrothesp^Talk to remove all the issues with the article. Sikandar^Talk

Delete as promotional shite - Even a rewrite won't save this monstrosity of an article!, Non notable school. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well I've been proven wrong it has been rewritten/removed- As much as I find it utterly pointless to keep this unfortunately per SCHOOLOUTCOMES as well as the consensus here consensus is usually to keep so I'll have to go with just that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now rewritten to remove promotional rubbish. See how easy that is? Try it next time instead of nominating for deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a secondary school. It's a K-12. Secondly, there were difficulties of verification. I assume you solved all of those. Third, there were troubles establishing any notability, and arguing that it gets a pass because it falls under the high school exemption is at least a stretching of the standards, especially when it's not clear that this is yet a school that has matriculated a class. Fourth, there were copyright violation concerns. Wagging a finger is rarely going to help anyone you're pointing at, and it's probably not even accurate. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - In what way on earth is a K-12 school not a secondary school? Or are you just being pointlessly pedantic, as it's not just a secondary school? Or do you genuinely believe that it doesn't count as a secondary school because it also educates younger children? How daft would that be? I am sick and tired of editors nominating viable articles for deletion rather than trying to correct them. It's supremely lazy and it in no way benefits Wikipedia. We always keep articles on verified secondary schools (it took me thirty seconds to verify via reliable sources that this school exists and is a genuine secondary school) and claiming it's not a secondary school as the first class has not yet graduated is laughable (in any case, we usually keep any school that educates up to 16, as they too are secondary schools - this is the normal school-leaving age in many countries and this is not Americanopedia - so your claim doesn't even apply to this school). It is tiresome having to explain this every other day to those who would rather delete articles than expand Wikipedia. As to copyright violations, once again, just delete the rubbish and create a stub as I did. Not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, shouting is much better than finger wagging. A secondary school is "primary education." K-7 or K-8 is primary school. When one runs across a K-12 combined, it's usually private, as this one is, and that means that there is frequently money being made. Is this one a for-profit? The article's writing means something to some of us: it was written with copyright violations and spamming, and now the author who did that gets honored and preserved, along with the links. In fact, the author of the spammy version can send out e-mail links to the historical version. I trust you'll be watchlisting this school to keep it clean. In sum: You believe it's much better to keep the "valuable" article that you wrote, and if we have to preserve the spammy version with the violations of the law in the history, well, that's a small price to pay to maintain the sanctity of schools and to teach the "lazy" people a lesson? You didn't see a bad writer, bad intent, and bad effects: you saw a SCHOOL and bad people listing it for deletion? I saw a person violating Wikipedia's guidelines, aims, and founding philosophy, but probably I just have a thing about schools. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the assumption that this article will be kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I've requested revision deletion of the copyright-infringing revisions under criterion RD1. HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, you've lost me. What on earth does "A secondary school is 'primary education'" mean? Seems to be a completely contradictory statement. So what if it's private? Completely irrelevant. As to the rest, I apologise if you think you and only you have got the project's best interests at heart, but I think if you check my edit history you'll find that maybe I have too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but per RexxS, if possible revdel the copyvio history as described in Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But revdel. Adequate notability for schools. Admittedly, it's a low bar. But once I weeded out all the mirrors, pr pieces, and other places with a similar name, I got third party things like [19], [20], [21], [22] which I consider to be adequate. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOASTX[edit]

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

No indication of notability, or even what the group does. No references. Promotional. I tagged this for SD, but an anonymous user (not the creator) reverted the tag. ubiquity (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I've speedy deleted per WP:G3.. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal Mohammed Mosa[edit]

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

As a possible hoax page, mispelled name, or requiring a complete rewrite. There is a list of things on this page that appear to be false. For example, Hapoel Haifa did not win the Israeli Premier League in 2003 (it was relegated to a lower tier that year) and Mosa was not the the league's best player from 2003 to 2007 (at least not officially). There is a Hilal Mousa, born on May 31, 1990, who played for the Palestinian National Team U23 recently. However a large amount of info on Mousa is significantly different than what's on this page right now, including having been born in 1992. mikeman67 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. In addition to the falsehoods listed above, subject's stated record for Palestine national team appears to be entirely fictitious based on record of teams matches in articles here and per Asian Football Confederation's web site. --Finngall ^talk 14:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Saleh[edit]

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

Page should be deleted or redirect to National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. No sources indicating notability, and my own search came up with nothing except trivial mentions in articles about the larger organization. mikeman67 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable references found for this individual. Not every spokesman has the meme-fueled star-power that Tariq Aziz did. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no good target as the only other article is a passing mention at the chemical attack, the best my searches found was this (some news links) but nothing to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may be hard to find based on a simple search (try different versions of his name Khaled vs. Khalid, Saleh vs. Salih, etc. also try arabic). I believe he was frequently cited in media back in 2012/2013, and also in 2014. Mostly regaridng the Geneva II Conference and chemical weapons use. He is also a person that is standing up against war crimes. Some examples:

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for the links, I have not seen these previously. However, I think all of them except for the PR Week piece are the definition of trivial mentions and raise issues of WP:NOTINHERITED. Saleh isn't the subject of the article and they provide almost no information on him. The PR Week article might help establish notability, but I don't believe it would on its own. mikeman67 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I am not too familiar with this process. If the article is deleted, can it be recreated later? I don't have the time to work on this article right now, but I believe he is, or at least was (and that he might will be) notable.

Comment - This article "Syrian Coalition media director Khalid Saleh: Crime with no consequence, the story of Assad and the international community is different. It is written by Khalid Saleh. It also contain some information on him. Quote:

Saleh is the director of the Syrian Coalition’s media office. He is a member of the Syrian Coalition, and a founding member of the Syrian National Coalition. Saleh was one of the original 22 members who met to establish the Syrian National Council in 2011, and currently serves on the SNC’s executive office. He also heads the political office of the Dier Ezzor Revolutionary Council and is a member of The Syrian National Current’s political office.

Erlbaeko (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you certainly can recreate a deleted page, see here for more details: WP:RECREATE. However, if you think the page meets the notability guidelines, and can share articles about him here, I'd of course have no issue withdrawing the nomination. The article you posted from The Hill would not establish notability. Saleh needs to be the subject of the article, not the author. See here for the basic rules: WP:BASIC. I'd suggest that if the page is kept, it should be moved to Khalid Saleh, since that seems to be the more common English spelling online. mikeman67 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the links. I basicly created the article to get rid of a red link, but I have noticed his name in lot of articles, and I believe he is notable. However, the article needs a lot of improvements, so if it can be recreated later I do not have any problems with a delete decision. Regarding his name; Reuters, BBC and RT mostly use Khaled Saleh. CNN, al-monitor and Time use Khalid Saleh. The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces use "Khaled Al Salih" and I don't know. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Delete: as it exists now. (Keep if improved.) Erlbaeko (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing the article as it exists now, not a future version that one envisions chock-full of sources. This person's name appears in many articles because he is a spokesman...that's what spokesmen do; speak. Him being quoted in the context of doing his job does not confer notability on the man himself. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, agreed. However, I believe he is more than just a spokesman. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This video may change your minds, but I am not sure if the ANDMagazine is a RS. It takes 22 min to watch. Khalid Saleh - Media Director Syrian Coalition The article itself is about him. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. And I'd suggest changing any red-links to generic "the spokesman for ... said" Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With a note that many arguments at both sides are not really policy-based or well argued. I would recommend that interested editors clean up the article for the problems identified during this debate. If that doesn't result in article that clearly establishes notability, I see no objection to start another AfD. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-creation cosmology[edit]

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

Back in 2006 when I last nominated this page for deletion, I was arguing that it was WP:VANITY. Well, I agree that it is, but actually now that Wikipedia has grown up there is a much better explanation for why this article should be deleted. Namely, it fails our notability guidelines. In particular, the theory as stated is not known in the relevant academic community and has not received the independent notice we require in order to write a neutral article. What we have right now is essentially original research in the sense that although some of the work has been published in out-of-the-way journals, there hasn't been any third-party citations nor recognition that this idea has any staying power. Wikipedia is not just a compendium of novel ideas. We need that third-party recognition in order to write articles. This subject simply doesn't have it. jps (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This review article [23] says that 60 authors have worked on this topic. Do you dispute that, or do you think that's not significant third party coverage within the field? AliceIngvild94 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the paper claims the theory was falsified by the Gravity Probe B precession experiment, which is a mark in its favor if we're trying to establish it as not pseudoscience. There's no reason why Wikipedia can't include theories that are well-posed but incorrect, and the somewhat substantial attention this subject has gotten seems to make it notable. AliceIngvild94 (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ApSS was recently reformed, so I don't think Barber's article made it in. I don't know that the claim of 60 authors is fair, it doesn't seem to me to be backed up by someone who didn't make-up the theory (it is Barber's theory). I also am not contending that this is pseudoscience. It isn't. It's just obscure and hasn't received the third-party coverage we would want to be able to report on it neutrally. jps (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see that most of the authors working on this theory are from 'non-western' countries might it be seen by some that the comment that this subject is not notable is an example of cultural hegemony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.182.1 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2015

Delete A gscholar search about the author (GA Barber) turns out a small citation count (this add-on estimates an h-index of 2, if you care). Now, that is in my view proof that the author is not notable (2 would be under-average even for low-citation fields), but it is no proof that a theory is not.

The review paper claims SCC2 "has led to over 80 citations". This is an unclear formulation, which could mean that the SCC2 founding paper had more that 80 cites (but then google scholar does not know of it) or that all papers that mentioned that theory collected more than 80 citations which is obviously not so impressive (a series of 13 papers each citing the previous ones generates 87 cites, but with no external cites it is obviously an unnotable walled garden - it could even be reached by a single author).

I am ready to reconsider if an independant and reliable source came up, but I would not hold my breath. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Edit: no objection to a redirect to Brans-Dicke theory per below. Tigraan (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "review paper" was posted to arXiv but is not published; it's listed as submitted but is several years old now, which strongly suggests that it was rejected. Between that and it being by the original author or the idea, I would not consider that review article to be of any validity in establishing notability. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the question is how notable the theory is then a quick 'Scholar Google' search for "Self Creation Cosmology" would not only give you some of the relevant articles, (I have just got 144 results) but also you would see whether most of them are just multiple cites from earlier papers or genuinely new work on the theory itself. (Most of them are the latter) If the question is whether the article is currently topical and the theory an active field of research then the fact that there have been 35 citations, all developments on the theory, in the last three years may give some indication of the answer. Garthbarber (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar count of articles fails pretty much on an academic version of WP:GOOGLEHITS: anyone can publish anything, but not anywhere... The quality of the sources has to be considered since you can publish any junk you want by paying a predatory journal.

Moreover, with all due respect to obscure but worthy fields of research, 12 cites per year does "give an indication": it is ridiculously low. That is three researchers with one paper per year each citing four papers in the same field: hardly notable (4 cites / paper looks low, too; in metallurgy or physics, it is usually around 30 cites per paper, with around 20 falling in the subdomain). Tigraan (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to clearly express that the theory is not generally accepted as a plausible theory of gravity, and parts of the article are UNDUE and it lacks inline citations, but on the other hand WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The topic has received independent notice many times over, as anyone can see. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article deserves attention and consideration as a non-standard cosmology since, although neither well known nor discussed by many experts, it has had enough papers dealing with in the scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.102.198.12 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now, I'm leaning WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has major issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, especially given that one of its main proponents (who I will direct to WP:SELF and WP:COI) wrote the majority of this article. The theory is cited and aknowledged in literature, see in particular doi:10.1086/374651 which writes "There are also [...] universes based on Barber gravity (Mohanty & Mishra 2002) and bimetric gravity (Yeranyan 2001); Barber is cited, Bimetric is not...". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree. But I'm not convinced that the article really does meet the significant coverage test at WP:GNG. So that needs to be demonstrated (either here or, better, by cleaning up the article) for me to think the article should be kept. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate Virginia Trimble's reviews, but she is somewhat famous in these for highlighting ideas that are not very well-known as well as providing an excellent overview of the more impactful stuff. Generally, the obscure ideas tend to be grouped together in laundry lists such as the one cited here. I don't think Wikipedia should have articles on any of the eight proposals listed there. There just isn't enough independent notice of them. jps (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of substantial writings by independent authors on this topic. WP:GNG is satisfied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Google Scholar results do it for me, unless there's something problematic I'm not seeing - David Gerard (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on verifying that the problems are indeed problems - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is the overwhelming reference to Astrophysics and Space Science. The journal was until recently a haven for out-of-the-way and maverick ideas associated with nonstandard cosmology until the editors cleaned shop about five years ago or so. Their new editorial policy makes it clear that they will no longer be a haven for such: "Papers in mathematical physics or in general relativity which do not establish clear astrophysical applications will no longer be considered." [24] This is why, I think, Barber hasn't been publishing in that journal much anymore. Note that these are all references to papers before the cleaning of house.

When you look for notable independent scholarly work on astronomy and physics, you need to look for the top-tier journals. ApJ, MNRAS, PhysRevD, and even A&A can all be excellent sources. I note that this idea doesn't really appear in any of those journals. This is a WP:REDFLAG. jps (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that would count as "something problematic" in my question. I'll think a bit and look again later - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no, this is rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Questionable~~ The article contains a large number of apparent citations to works by third parties in reliable sources (the basic criterion for inclusion per WP:GNG). However, in checking whether those references are real, I couldn't find an actual origin for most of the ones that aren't by Barber (who is not a third party as the original author of the hypothesis). One third-party source I was able to find, Blachske & Dabrowski 2012, mostly mentions self-creation cosmology in passing, so it doesn't quite met the "significant coverage" test to me. Also, given that the paper is dated 2004 on arXiv and 2012 in the journal and that the journal (Entropy) is open access, I'm skeptical that it's a journal with proper peer review. Thus, at the very least, to get my vote to keep, the article needs better sourcing that clearly establishes this hypothesis has significant coverage in reliable (ie not open access pay-to-publish with limited peer review) sources that are third-party. Based on the comments by others, this may well be doable, but it needs to be done. Note: I was sent here by a note at WT:Astronomy. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Entropy should be considered non-reliable. Thomson ISI includes it in its rankings and it has an impact factor of 1.564 in 2013. I can't find the 2014 IF however, so maybe ISI stopped including them in their ranking, but it is index in severage selective databases so... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashill is right. The publisher, MDPI, is on Beall's List: [25]. Basically, it is a bad idea to accept ANY paper that is published in a journal from Beall's list as being reliable. jps (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange indeed. I never knew of any predatory journal with an impact factor... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the older links to the references in the article are broken then a quick 'Scholar Google' or 'ADS Abstract Service' search will find them. Garthbarber (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, and I'll do that at some point if no one beats me to it. (It's a minor pain.) But an additional comment: the original proponent of an idea, who wrote the article in the first place, actively defending its inclusion at the least doesn't look good and is questionable per WP:COI and WP:SELF. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning Delete. References to this topic appear to be primarily by one author (Barber) and published in Astrophysics & Space Science, which as jps points out above has decided to stop hosting these kinds of articles. I can't find any coverage (through ADS) of this topic in the major journals. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some sources independent of Barber: [26], [27], [28]. I don't think you can discount papers from Astrophysics and Space Science just because they no longer accept mathematical physics papers. However, the the topic may be more notable as a mathematical construction than a physical theory. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ApSS has had problems that were well-documented historically and Dopita, when he became the editor-in-chief, basically dealt with them meaning that you will not find any more papers on this subject in that journal. What has happened is that the journal has become more reliable from the perspective of Wikipedia, and this means that we should look with skepticism at any claims that a subject is notable purely on the basis of inclusion in that journal. The other two journals you link to have incredibly low impact factors when compared to the top-tier journals that are mentioned above. Basically, the problem is one of lack of notice. That's the notability argument, and that's where it fails. Some day, maybe someone will find something important to document about this particular idea. It may even bear inclusion (subject to WP:WEIGHT considerations) on other pages. But having a stand-alone article on a scientific subject in Wikipedia requires serious and significant notice of the idea which I do not think your citations show. jps (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify something I meant to note; if the bulk of the sources are in one journal it raises a flag to me that this might not be a widely discussed topic. Sam Walton (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem isn't that ApSS no longer accepts mathematical physics papers. The problem is that the editorial and peer review standards in that journal were very low at the time. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the citations to proper references, with arxiv/bibcode/doi links when I could find them. This should greatly facilite our jobs here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Headbomb. I've now gone through the cited references. Based on those, I change my !vote to delete. Several of the sources didn't mention self-creation cosmology at all or only very much in passing (I deleted all of these). Most of the remaining sources are all in Astrophysics and Space Science from 2006 or earlier (which makes them suspect as pointed out by jps) or by Barber and thus not third party. The remaining papers are in Entropy (suspect as mentioned above) and Theoretical and Applied Mechanics (which I can't even confirm the existence of on Google; I don't think it's Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, which does at least exist). This leaves a grand total of one cited source (Brans 1987, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987GReGr..19..949B, in General Relativity and Gravitation) by a third party which is largely about this topic. Since WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in reliable third-party secondary sources, this fails, to me. One article is not significant coverage, and it's a primary source, not a secondary source, anyway. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that looking a who cites the first two papers (Barber 1982 and the 'refutation' of Brans 1987) would be interesting. These are highly cited paper, with many from IJTP and GRG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. It seems that Ap&SS is still publishing a good many articles on the subject, but only by the Indian groups and only related to extensions. I'm having a hard time understanding how this is not violating their editorial policy. Then I checked their editorial board and found that D.R.K. Reddy is sitting on it and he happens to be one of the authors who is interested in this subject from the Brans-Dicke perspective. One possibility might be a redirect of this article to Brans-Dicke theory — I think that would be okay from the perspective of the larger class of models to which this particular one belongs. It looks like Dopita's attempt at cleaning house didn't stick. Too bad. jps (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that making this a redirect to Brans-Dicke theory (perhaps a subsection thereof) is appropriate. Irrespective of value judgements about one particular journal, the fact that the work on this topic is so heavily concentrated in one low-profile journal harms any notability claim. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now I know you think it does not look good that "the original proponent of an idea, who wrote the article in the first place, actively defending its inclusion" but I feel compelled to comment because judgements are being made based on comments made here that are just incorrect. For example:

1. Astrophysics & Space Science is not on Beall's list - in fact I find it hard to find any journals that cite Self-Creation cosmology that are.

2. Of the 127 articles on some 37 different journals world-wide that I have found that do discuss the theory the largest number are indeed on Ap&SS, but only some 42 or so, hardly the majority, and therefore it is difficult to see how the comment above applies: "the fact that the work on this topic is so heavily concentrated in one low-profile journal harms any notability claim".

3. Furthermore it is not unusual for editorial boards to consist of academics with the expertise to publish in that journal.

4. 'The Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics' can be found here: [29] and, as far as I can see, it is also not on Beall's list.

The suggestion that "One possibility might be a redirect of this article to Brans-Dicke theory" might be a good consideration ~~but I see that this comment has been deleted~~. Garthbarber (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Garthbarber (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect suggestion is still present and has been explicitly supported by three editors. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC): Right - so it is - I missed it previously - my mistake, sorry. I have struck through that comment.Garthbarber (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to have the sources necessary to pass WP:REDFLAG. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Perry (author)[edit]

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

Non-notable lacking non-trivial secondary support. reddogsix (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No suitable references. The book is published by a minor publishing house. No independent reviews. (Checked Booklist and Kirkus, both of which review just about every book published.) LaMona (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches failed to discover sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Lee Hansen[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, see criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more than a curriculum. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The economists are quite thorough about ranking each other and apparently he doesn't even make the top 25% in Brazil [30], so WP:PROF#C1 seems unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AmiQNX[edit]

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

I believe that this article incorrectly interprets the title of this webpage as implying that there was ever an operating system called AmiQNX. The webpage discusses a version of QNX that was at one point announced for the Amiga. Outside of its title, the page doesn't ever call this system "AmiQNX". I can't find any other source that corroborates the existence of such an operating system. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to QNX or delete. This webpage is pretty much the only site I found that uses the term "amiqnx". More generic searches turn up historical discussions on enthusiast websites about press releases. So, apparently, there was some sort of business partnership that happened, but there's really no coverage in reliable sources. Not surprising, given that the Amiga was mostly dead by this point. It's possible there are non-English sources that I missed (the Amiga survived for a little longer in Europe than it did in the US), but I don't think there's enough information out there for an article on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no good target aside from QNX but that's if it can be mentioned there - My searches (News, Books, browser, Highbeam and Thefreelibrary) found no good results. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real content. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. A redirect would be okay too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per G4. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 13:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Sleep Association (ASA)[edit]

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

An article about this organization was deleted after an AFD back in 2007. Since then, it has been recreated a few times at American Sleep Association. The organization still fails WP:N and WP:CORP. The only mentions in reliable sources are passing mentions of the organization as evidence of credentials of individuals being quoted. The most coverage I could find in Google News was from a magazine called Sleep Review. Their website currently does not work, but looking at a cache of the available articles reveals stories that appear mostly promotional in nature. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article has been repeatedly deleted and American Sleep Association was salted. No increase in notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanishq Abraham[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, a child genius covered in the context of one event (being a young genius and MENSA member) that would be non-notable apart from this. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article asserts several things this child is notable for, and provides WP:RS. I have removed much of the united poorly written promotional content to clean it up a little, but it still needs some more work. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At present, it's still "world's tallest man in the county." It puts a lot of credence, if not veneration, in Mensa, and otherwise it credits a prodigy for having been a prodigy. Academic achievements are awfully transitory. On the other hand, he may well soon do something amazing that will generate loads of RS notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is still in school, no achievements, no notability. When I was in school I was the county math champion, but I wouldn't claim notability because of it... Kraxler (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's remarkable that he graduated from high school at 10 years old, but I don't think that's a record. I don't even know if there is a list on WP of similar young graduates. But fails GNG; let's wait till he graduates from medical school and law school in a few months. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable for multiple things — such as joining Mensa at 4 and graduating college at 11 (two distinct events so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply) — and articles about him span several years. In addition to the refs in the article at present, these all talk about Tanishq Abraham in substantial detail: [31][32][33][34]. It appears he has appeared on television, may be the youngest graduate of American River College, graduated high school at 10 and his work has been published by NASA; a writer for the Metro says he "might just be the cleverest kid in the world" ([35]). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 13:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "event", such as it is, is being noted for having a high IQ; all the coverage stems from that, regardless of how many "this is what the super-smart kid did today", "this is what the super-smart kid did last week", and so on. Take the case of the Hiccup Girl; a spate of news for nonstop hiccuping as a kid, then an arrest for murder. Young people are arrested every day for murder, but the only reason that one got press is because some reporters saw the name and said "oh yea, the Hiccup Girl". Tarc (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Young people are arrested every day for murder" — How many people graduate from college at 11 every day? I can't find many who have achieved similar feats. I would suggest that, at the very least, Abraham should be listed on List of child prodigies, but he doesn't seem to fit nicely under any of the article's sections. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I do not mean to denigrate the subject of the article in any way, nor to suggest that he will not achieve great things, but, unfortunately, I can easily imagine my college graduating a yellow dog, if it paid tuition and could lay down a sacrifice bunt. My point is that graduating college is wonderful. It's an important achievement, but it's relative. It is something that is not necessarily made into a greater achievement because of the age of the candidate. I would not want to have the proceedings stop and say, "Let's give extra applause for this graduate, who is blind," nor "this graduate, who is in a wheel chair." The accomplishment -- graduating college -- is identically difficult, we believe, regardless of the struggles a person individually faces going in. Therefore, being young, like being old, is merely an accident, and the accomplishment remains "graduating college." Again, I don't mean to suggest the young person is not truly remarkable -- only that he has not had time, yet, to determine his own achievements. If he wants to pull a Charles Bukowski, he should be able to. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real achievement he is being touted for - graduating high school at age 10 - occurred in a home-schooling context, which (to put it kindly) may be less stringent in its requirements than a regular high school. BTW the article does not even claim that he "graduated college at age 11", as stated above with no evidence - and in any case that achievement would be meaningless without substantial independent reliable coverage. Coverage is local and in some cases dead links. He may be notable someday, but he isn't now. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More of a page 6D community news event. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Moby. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Night in NYC[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this release. Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The unreleased track is of interest and could be noted next to this album's entry on the Moby Discography page, or else in prose on the main Moby page.Dennisthemonkeychild (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Moby. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frans van der Hoeven[edit]

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

Reason Yasima burundi (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC) this article does not meet Wikipedia notability Guidelines , NO third party Wikipedia reliable sources Yasima burundi (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you had done WP:BEFORE you would have found all the third-party reliable sources. -- haminoon (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite what is said above, there seems to be confirmation of a very good, very active jazz bass player. There are passim references to him as a member of a rhythm section. It's kind of the fate of bass players to not be noticed, even when they're outstanding. Jaco Pastorius was flamboyant, outlandish, as well as a genius, and the wider public didn't really know about him until it was virtually too late. Asking for everyone to just admit that being a good player and a praised player is sufficient for a biographical and namespace article seems curious, especially when the recordings don't even give the labels, the dates, or anything else. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run-of-the-mill musician, article does not indicate why he should be notable, and is sourced to the subject's own website. Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaseen Anwer[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant/in-depth coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources. Does not pass WP:GNG and merit entry in Wikipedia. sami ^talk 05:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:creator of this page is Myselfanwer and name of the page is Yaseen Anwer....i hope this is no coincidence....and lets hope this is no case of self advertising....Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be entirely self-promotional material, and self-written as well. While the festival he has created may be somewhat notable, this man himself, is not. Solntsa90 (talk)
Delete or move to Poets Corner Group - My searches found some of the same links listed and nothing to suggest solid independent notability but it seems Poets Corner Group is sourced (maybe notable?) so this can be moved there. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pines (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book, fails WP:NBOOK, prod template removed without reason WWGB (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps merge and redirect to a section in Wayward Pines article about the TV series based on the Wayward Pines book trilogy, of which Pines was the first book. Perhaps keep and expand to cover the other two books also, and move/rename to "Wayward Pines (book series)". This book, the first in a trilogy, is the inspiration of the TV series, which means it meets wp:NBOOK. ~~It's not clear there need to be a separate article about each book, but~~ some coverage about Pines and the other books in Wikipedia is appropriate, and for now keeping the coverage in this article and further developing it seems fine. Note the article creation was the first and so-far-only edit by a new Wikipedian. Eliminating the editor's entire contribution to Wikipedia seems harsh and unnecessary. And proposing that it be deleted is, frankly, rude. I mean no disrespect to the PROD-placer and to the AFD nominator, as aiming to delete new articles is common practice in Wikipedia, but it is no way to welcome a new editor, and it is wrong, in my opinion. --do ncr am 06:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added to the article and note that the topic meets criteria of wp:NBOOK in spades. Perhaps wp:BEFORE was not performed? --do ncr am 07:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Nair[edit]

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

Contested prod-a non notable person that almost comes across as a advertisement with no reliable references Wgolf (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches, although from an English perspective, found no good sources, although it also lists him as one time, I only searched with the full name. Simply not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Yunshui per CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Casebolt[edit]

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

This person appears to meet each of the three criteria listed at WP:BLP1E, so we should not have an article on the individual. His local "patrolman of the year" award is minor enough that I do not consider it a second "event". VQuakr (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I beg someone to do a speedy delete on this one - this article is only going to be full of undue focus on that stupid pool party video. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for multiple events, thus the range of sources dating over 6 years. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendrick7: the number of sources is not the reason for the deletion nomination. WP:BLP1E is the reason your !vote is a non sequitur. VQuakr (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being patrolman of the year for his town is of dubious notability at best. Being suspended for breaking up a pool party/making millennials cry is hardly notable; WP:NOTNEWS —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notable for multiple events. The number of sources is, I agree, immaterial. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being town cop of the year is not an event, nor is it even notable (considering probably every town and county awards cop of the year, every single year). It would certainly fail WP:ANYBIO standard. The number of sources IS relevant; please review WP:GNG: the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources; the significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. Where is the significant coverage of his amazing cop of the year award? This is a WP:PSEUDO biography in a violation of WP:BLP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm no fan of today's American LEO's, but this is a clear BLP violation. What does the article say? It says he's a cop who won an award and then lost his job. Is that a justifiable keep? No. So, what is it doing? It's memorializing the links. That is not cricket. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Ritchie333 per CSD A7 (article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steerpike (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band with absolutely zero sources and my searches found nothing (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) even when using "Steerpike band Norwich". The only significant improvement was in February 2010 when an IP traced to Norwich added information without sources. This article has been around since October 2006 and, unless it was that very unknown, I question where it actually existed given the low amount of good sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Easy call in this case, as there are no sources, and the claims made are pretty unverifiable (radio play on a particular (unstated) night of John Peel) or tenuous (loads depends upon a "Noisebox" entity). They may, indeed, have been an important local band, but I can name three great bands that no one has heard of (and I mean great). Hithladaeus (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All of the delete objections that raised WP:NFOOTBALL have been met as he has now played in the match and the nominator has as a result, switched their position. Davewild (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Bryce[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by another user. Claiming that he will be making his pro debut shortly, which is a crystal ball violation. – Michael (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Michael, sorry for violating the crystal ball violation but it states in these articles [36] [37] that they are traveling with the team and that they are both gonna start for the team in the near future. If this deletion can just wait a while it is very likely it will happen that's why they were sent down. If not i'll just remake the page if he does end up starting or appearing in a game with Saint Louis or any other fully professional team. Da Drewster (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saint Louis FC - I think that's sufficient as people may look for information on him due to recent loan. Additionally this way the article can easily be recreated when he does play, which I agree does sound imminent. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a bad redirect, since he obviously won't be on the Saint Louis FC roster forever so you will inevitably end up with a redirect pointing to a page where the subject is not mentioned. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. Reso lute 00:03, 10 June 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. Travelling with the team does not mean they will play anytime soon, once the player does pass a notability guideline then the article can be recreated / undeleted. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the claim that he will be making his pro debut shortly is made by his coach Frank Yallop in [38]. As such this is most certainly NOT a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Nfitz (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually Nfitz, you might want to reread that source. The article talks about two players going on loan and the article seems pretty clear that it is Magee who is going on loan and will, play in St. Louis and get a game under his belt - about 60 minutes (which is what I assume you are refrencing). Comments about Brice are limited to a much more nebulous, This loan is a great opportunity for Kingsley to get meaningful games under his belt. he may well play, but the guarantee provided in the source cited is not about him unfortunately. WP:CRYSTAL still applies here. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article seems pretty clear to me. And the quote you've provided does make it clear that he was sent down in order to get playing time. Not sure what your seeing in that quote that I'm not. There's multiple media coverage for this transfer of Kingsley, including http://www.csnchicago.com/fire/fire-send-magee-bryce-usl-affiliate-saint-louis-loan which notes that Bryce's loan will encompass a more prolonged period as Yallop intends for the former Saint Louis University Billiken to get an extended run of games. That seems pretty clear to me, that he's been sent down to get games. As such, there is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that is applicable here. Fenix down, you might want to read and other references. If we delete this article, we'll simply be wasting everyone's time, when it's recreated in a few days. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exactly, he's been sent down with the intention of getting games, that is completely different to guaranteeing he will get any game time. After all, he could step under a bus today. Once he plays he is notable, at the moment he is not by any guideline. I would also recommend you re-read WP:CRYSTAL as it specifically advises editors to, Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. This is essentially the same as predicting that player will play soon, at least I see no fundamental difference in spirit. I'll happily change my view if plays while this AfD is open and have no problem personally undeleting the article should he meet any guideline at a later date, that literally takes two seconds. Fenix down (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - short of getting run over by a bus (at which point AFD is an option) he's been sent to this reserve squad for a reason - to get playing time. Other than a tragedy or career-ending incident it's hard to believe that this wouldn't happen. "Avoid predicted line-ups" is a reference to pundits ... not to the person who serves as Director of Soccer to BOTH teams, and head coach of the senior squad. We all know that this article will get recreated shortly. It's an utter waste of everyone's time not to apply WP:COMMONSENSE on this issue. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, you might wish to do a little re-reading, there is no mention whatsoever of pundits in WP:CRYSTAL. the statement Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative is all that is mentioned and is pretty clear. I'm not quite sure how you managed to make such a fundamental misreading, but would advise you to be a bit more careful in future as it may be interpreted as a lack of good faith to apparently make up policy. you are correct that the article may well get recreated soon, but that is not an issue, as I have already noted, I will happily undelete myself if / when the individual passes a guideline, that is not an onerous task by any means and is in no way an argument for keeping an inherently non-notable individual. Regarding the WP:COMMONSENSE point, lets look at the flow chart with regards to this article:

Does the existence of this article break the rules? Yes as the individual currently does not pass any guideline.
Is that because the rules are wrong? No, the rules in place specifically state that we do not create articles on people in anticipation of notability, hence the very existence of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG.
Are you sure that the change is a good one by common sense that improves the encyclopedia? No, as it involves the addition of an article about an individual who fulfills no guidelines and is therefore inherently non-notable at the time. Arguing that it should be kept simply because it may well have to be recreated soon is essentially a mercy argument. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep refering to rules, despite there being no hard and fast rules. WP:NORULES WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. You refer to sports team line-ups, despite no reference being made to one - I'm not sure how you managed to make such a fundamental misreading, but I'd advise you to be a bit more careful in the future, as it may be interpreted as a lack of good faith! Nfitz (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, WP:CRYSTAL states very clearly, and I quote: Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A policy stating explicitly not to predict the selection of a group of players for any given event is in spirit identical to predicting the involvement of a single player in any given event / line up and your comments above have explicitly predicted his inclusion in a sports team line up in the future as a claim to notability.

To try to progress this discussion, I have addressed the four main points rooted in fundamental guidelines and policies:

This player has never played in a fully professional league or senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY;
This player has not received significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG;
I have shown how following the WP:COMMONSENSE flow chart does not lead to a keep outcome;
I have indicated that a "don't delete it when it will only have to be recreated later" argument can readily be construed to fall foul of WP:MERCY.

It would help if you could perhaps address some of the points I have made. Fenix down (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to respond to your comments. You keep referring to sports team-line ups. I have not mentioned any line-ups (an typical example of which would be [39]) - I have only mentioned the statement of the director of soccer of both the first team and reserve squad - which isn't a line-up. I've also clearly demonstrated why WP:CRYSTAL isn't valid in this particular case. All your other points are valid, except that we know from the reference provided that (short of tragedy) he will get a first team appearance for the fully-professional reserve squad shortly - and therefore WP:COMMONSENSE tells us that we should WP:Ignore all rules remembering that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and not delete an article that we all know will soon be recreated. Nfitz (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The fact that we do not apply WP:NFOOTBALL prematurely is an incredibly well established consensus, having been universally applied at afd for as long as the guideline has existed. Until he actually plays, the article does not does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and in the absence of significant coverage fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case, we have a clear statement from the team's director of soccer, that he's been sent to this reserve squad for the purpose of playing. I'm not aware of a single other example of this, so there is neither a well established consensus or even a precedent for this situation - as far as I know; but correct me if I'm wrong. Nfitz (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All players are contracted for the purpose of playing, otherwise why would they be contracted? By your logic therefore anyone signed to a club should have an article because they are in the squad for the purpose of playing. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense ... unless there is a clear statement that a player is signed for particular squad, with the intent to play - which seldom happens to young players. You are putting words in my mouth - words I'd never use. Please stop making strawman arguments. Nfitz (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Nfitz: according to this source from February 2015, young player Keshi Anderson was going to be in the squad for the forthcoming match - but he wasn't and he's still waiting for his first appearance four months later...it's still WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely there's a huge difference between a coach saying he's going to give a 20-year old striker a couple of minutes at the end up an upcoming tier 1 match (which is obviously going to depend on what happens to that match), and a coach saying he's transferring a 22-year old midfielder from the tier 1 club to the fully-professional tier 3 reserve squad in order for him to get playing time. Either way, there's WP:NOHARM in simply leaving the article in place for a few weeks to see what happens. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that it's significantly different. The time scale is longer, clearly, but if and when his debut will happen is just as dependent on what happens in the interceding time as Snowman's example. Additionally, if DaDrewster's unsourced comments on the talk page are accurate, something similar to that example has already happened in this case. Bryce was apparently speculated to play St. Louis' match last Saturday against Pittsburgh, but didn't, which necessarily colours other speculation on the matter. Finally, you should really stop citing NOHARM in these things since it's one of the explicitly enumerated arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that (his lack of appearance so far) may be a valid point - he didn't even appear on the bench for a match, even though we know that he was with club by at least the most recent match - [40]; that and I've noted incorrectly that this is the Chicago Fire reserve squad - which isn't true ... Chicago is one of the few teams in MLS without a reserve squad in USL - with St. Louis being an independent team with only an affiliation - which may explain reluctance to do Chicago's bidding (I'm surprised no one caught me on that!). Perhaps User:DaDrewster has some knowledge or a reference that explains why he hasn't appeared yet? I disagree that WP:NOHARM is an argument to avoid though ... it's an argument to avoid for keeping an article forever; I agree that if he can't make the USL squad, that article shouldn't be here. My point is that there is WP:NOHARM in waiting a few weeks to see what happens. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not wait a few months, or a year? Why in a few weeks time is the argument "lets wait a couple more weeks" not still valid? The answer is, as you well know, because we don't create articles in anticipation of notability. The change in the tone of your argument from the start, where you tried to suggest Yallop was guaranteeing he was going to play in a specific game very soon (despite this referring to someone completely different) to now saying "let's just wait and see what happens in a bit" when he doesn't even make the squad, shows better than anything anyone else could say that your argument rests solely on your own speculation and is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think after a few months, would be clear that the source had mis-spoke. Read the discussion. My change in tone is because of my error that I noted that Yallop is not Manager of Soccer for both teams; that changes things. Your assertion that this rests solely on my own speculation is in fact speculation, that you are pulling right out of your imagination. Perhaps you should read the discussion, rather than putting your fingers in your ears, and shouting WP:CRYSTAL like you've seen a wolf in the hills. Nfitz (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Yallop is not the manager of both teams he cannot direct who plays. His statement therefore contains an inherent level of speculation. Your use of his statement to support keeping the article is also therefore speculation. Your presence in this discussion would be more useful if you perhaps framed your comments around trying to indicate GNG rather than using rationale after rationale that are specifically noted as unacceptable, in the hope that these will be accepted as reasons to keep an article on a player who might at some point in the future just about scrape over a project specific guideline. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"As Yallop is not the manager of both teams he cannot direct who plays." Yes. That's exactly the issue I raised. Your presence in this discussion would be more useful if you perhaps had pointed out that exact issue before I did, rather than simply yelling wolf and than leaving it for me to realise my error. If I'd have been correct about that, then WP:CRYSTAL would have been clearly off the table (despite your claims otherwise). If you'd pointed out that mistake when I made it, we'd have about 15 less comments here. Nfitz (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing on GNG? Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has raised the possibility that the article WP:GNG other than you. What needs to be addressed on that? What have you seen that raises WP:GNG possibilities? Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nominator. Made his pro debut for Saint Louis so I'm dropping my nomination. – Michael (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest listening to Frank Yallup next time, rather than starting unnecessary deletions based on false claims of WP:CRYSTAL. It was very unlikely that Bryce wouldn't be playing quickly, given the clear desire of Yallup and the relationship between the teams. Nfitz (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet the guidelines until today. So it was not a false claim. I suggest you start relying on past consensus put fourth by the football project rather than trying to make a point. – Michael (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was very clear he'd be starting very soon based on multiple very clear media reports. There was absolutely no reason that a little common sense couldn't be applied to simply wait for a couple of matches to make sure he didn't meet a tragic end from a falling satellite or something. Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to small participation. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azoteq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Nothing appears to have changed since the previous AFD in 2012. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete simply because there are many sources outside of the current ones, a News search found mostly press releases, highbeam but mostly for patents and one thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Richard Whittington-Egan. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Whittington-Egan[edit]

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

This is poorly sourced for a BLP. The one sourced provided does not have much substance. Further I would question the notability of the subject. A google search only turned up her books. Trout 71 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches at News, Books and thefreelibrary found nothing but Highbeam found a few results so I thought I would search at paywall Newsbank for old articles but found nothing. Unfortunately, it seems she hasn't received considerable coverage and there's no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Forgive the slowness here but this is the first deletion discussion I've entered into. Whilst the page needs additional citations and may be marked as such, this does not merit deletion by itself - merely that the list of sources should be improved. The subject satisfies the general notability criteria of having significant and reliable coverage - for example, it has been established that Google returns multiple results. A basic Amazon search alone, whilst not ideal, is classified as a reliable source and identifies a number of publications; this is independent of the subject. As SwisterTwister pointed out, Highbeam returned results. I'm unclear why Trout 71 feels that a professional author with a history of verifiable published works available through major retailers to the world at large, that do not require original research to discover conflicts in any way with the requirements of notability. Checking the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people, I find nothing about the article that contravenes the guidelines. Shad0wca7 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Richard Whittington-Egan, otherwise does not meet threshold for WP:NWRITER yet. Quis separabit? 21:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Whittington-Egan, with whom she has co-authored non-notable books. I can't find any significant coverage of her or her books. Most of her work is published by Neil Wilson, a small Scottish independent house, so it's not vanity publishing but equally it's not the most prestigious or free-spending firm. I'm not sure if there's much point in merging; it lacks references to reliable independent sources and there's not much information aside from the bibliography, which if she isn't notable doesn't seem very relevant to her husband's article. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die Trying (band)[edit]

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

Band appears to fail to meet notability guidelines: WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found that they had a hit of sorts (see also [41]), and I found some coverage on the web: [42], [43], [44], [45]. Not really convincing to establish notability but if others can find more it may put the band above the bar. --Michig (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article as it is looks fan-written, with trivia tossed in at whatever position it occurs to whichever passing fan can insert it, but Michig's evidence is accurate: the band charted. They were on a major label and made it in the top 50 with a single. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to keep - I'm the user who removed the PROD and suggested to go to AfD because I found sources such as this (charts), one press release and links such as this confirm the Papa Roach affiliation here. Finding coverage even when detailed is not easy to find as it'll give you results for other things but I found some News here too. I'm not from California or familiar with the band but I felt this needed more examination than PROD. SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This article has a few members that are in other notable bands such as, Shane Blay in Oh Sleeper and Wovenwar, and Chad Ackerman in Destroy the Runner & (I guess) Austrian Death Machine. I know Janssen Jenson was in band but i still don't remember which one that was. Metalworker14 (yo) 6:33, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 hoax, WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Veggies (Rapper)[edit]

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

Possibly a hoax, but definitely fails to have any coverage in reliable sources. The one source offered in the article is claimed to be an interview with Kris Veggies is actually for another rapper named Locksmith. The twitter account has no tweets and the official website is just some headings with no content. It has all the earmarks of somebody trying to set up a hoax but not bothering following through with the fake sites to support it. Whpq (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think it's a hoax created by this kid. The Twitter account has tons and tons of these "verifiedcall.com" links which is a money-maker somehow. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatica McKinney, Texas[edit]

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

This housing development appears to fail the general notability guideline. Both the sources provided fail the independence test (the Croatian source quotes heavily from press releases), and a good faith search online turned up nothing better (just some coverage in PR, blog, and real estate publications). VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG at this point. The article on Supetar already mentions the development and that is sufficient. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I created the article but agree with Мандичка that the info in Supetar is sufficient. It may merit a mention in McKinney, Texas too. – Miranche^T C 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe mention at McKinney, Texas as mentioned - I'm from this area and it's not notable yet despite that News found some results. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Stahl[edit]

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

While it appears that Stahl has written a lot of articles, it doesn't seem like anyone else has written about him. Writing articles is simply what journalists do, notability requires more. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant aside from a few mentions at Books. With no target for moving, delete for now until notability is established. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's very possible that my view is distorted, because I read progressive blogs and left wing stuff, but I rather think that Stahl is getting discussed in journalism. I don't know if those are all passim or what it would take -- how many "Power Panel" appearances and the like -- but he's certainly parlayed the Slate position into further discussion. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run-of-the-mill journalist, no indication in the article why he should be notable, no independent sources, no coverage, web searches turn up his artcles and blog posts Kraxler (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Hithladaeus may be correct, he may be creating buzz, searches do find his name on some non-notable blogs, so, it may simply be WP:TOOSOON. However, he does not pass the GNG test of reliable, third-party sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Randy_(band)#Full-length_albums. – czar 19:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's No Way We're Gonna Fit In[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG, given that this is a Swedish band, maybe someone familiar with the language can provide some reliable sources. Unfortunately, the article on the Swedish wikipedia is also lacking in any sources. Tagged for no references since 2009. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Randy_(band)#Full-length_albums as the album is not outstandingly notable but of all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) I found this and two here (Encyclopedia of popular and Maximum Rocknroll) but apparently not in-depth about this album. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherazam Mazari[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor with same surname. Suspect AUTOBIO. Could not find significant coverage in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even if it's not a vanity article, it doesn't make claims for significant notability. It fails the general guidelines. I'm not sure that tribal identifiers are germane for calling notability in London, but that's not part of my reasoning. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No reliable sources, possibly a case of SPIP. Faizan (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. sami ^talk 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Siopsis[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline for Academics _nonsense ferret 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His h index is 20. I do not know if that is high or low for this field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Theoretical physics is a high citation field in which his citation record doesn't stand out to me. And his cv shows nothing else that could help pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The High Learys . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Turner (Musician)[edit]

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

See Draft:Jamie Turner (musician). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The High Learys unless/until significant coverage in independent reliable sources are found to justify a standalone article. Current article has no justification for any claim to independent notability, redirect is appropriate per WP:BAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band. Lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above, not notable outside of the band where no sources establish his specific notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brogue (video game)[edit]

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

Previous PROD, reason for removal being "This game received very good reviews from the gaming media and has a very dedicated fanbase. How is it of no importance?". I personally can't find anything that makes this article pass WP:GNG. --Anar chyte 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least two existing sources in the article, plus a few others with a goggle search [46], [47], [48]. It's probably not going have a typical AAA game article structure but does appear notable. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - - per sources on talk page. Extremely lazy nomination. Please brush up on deletion policy, especially WP:BEFORE. A simple search could have found you the sources necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator explicitly stated that he/she at least tried to look for sources - that means that WP:BEFORE was done, and patrollers don't usually search the talk page for sources. Searching this game up with a few different keywords doesn't come with clear cut results. An nominator making an inaccurate nomination doesn't mean that the nominator is clueless on the deletion policy and notability guidelines, nor does it deserve blunt criticism. Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Esquivalience - The sources I'm talking about are available on the articles very short talk page, and a few are even in the article itself. If they didn't bother to check in places as obvious as this, I don't think they did a very good job following through on BEFORE. Also, at least one of the sources shows up on the most basic of searches - merely typing the name in at Google. This is found, and reliable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article topic has several hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (@Anarchyte, as a WPVG regular, it would be useful to search that custom Google site before listing a video game at AfD.) The Rock, Paper, Shotgun, PC Gamer, and indiegames.com articles are from vetted sources should be just sufficient for the general notability guideline, and then there's also Masem's links above. It isn't a lot—I would like to see more reviews, in particular—but there's more than passing mentions and enough to write an article. – czar 14:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Marmara Development Agency[edit]

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

Local agency, no evidence it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Source coverage consists of passing mentions (e.g. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54].) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can mentioned elsewhere (I'm not seeing a good target though) because my search results were similar to above (one link at News and several guides at Books) and finally nothing at Highbeam and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Koziara[edit]

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

A non notable person failing WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Only claim to notability is a large collections of self published works where no independent reliable sources exist to back up the claim. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aurifera SA is a self-publishing house that can get a book on Amazon or other outlets "within days". I'm not finding any independent reviews or coverage of the subject or his books. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG; additionally it appears to be WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY as creator has the same names as one of his books (Historia Nostra. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person may, as the article claims, have written 486 books (dang that's a lot!) but I see no evidence that any of those books are widely read or notable. No coverage that would make the author himself notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|Note: Look at Amazon.com to see all of the books. Self-publishing is the new way of publishing books. Old publishing companies are going to fade away in the next few decades. He also sold over 650 copies. 15:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of nobility and no coverage in reliable secondary sources. While selling 650 copies is good for a self-publisher, it does not indicate a wide spread interest in the works of the author. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

| Please, look at this page for all his books on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_gnr_fkmr0?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ap.+koziara&keywords=p.+koziara&ie=UTF8&qid=1433968787 . • NostraHistoria 08:41 PM, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete Good Amazon profile, but nothing to pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 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.