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) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayad's Yellow Trousers[edit]

Ayad's Yellow Trousers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable unreleased short film that fails WP:NOTFILM and GNG. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete for being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Short films have it tough, and those by newcomers have it harder. The article tells us it will be uploaded to YouTube and Facebook when completed. But uness it gets some coverage it will fail WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence provided in the article or to be found in English or Arabic web searches to indicate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:00, 28 May 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 per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead by Morning (Book)[edit]

Dead by Morning (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book with virtually zero third-party coverage (had to differentiate between this and a well-covered book of the same name). The book is self-published and even the article itself admits the book was turned down by publishers "for years." --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage of the author and the book. [1] reddogsix (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK. Google brings up nothing, appears to be offered as a free ebook and published on 20 May. Might be a case of WP:TOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable book failure. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:54, 25 May 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. Overall consensus is that the subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, thus qualifying for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Glieson[edit]

Katja Glieson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of another editor who went to the wrong venue for deletion. I will notify him so he can make his formal case for deletion in the proper venue. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Many thanks User:Safiel Sorry for the inappropriate venue! My thoughts are that in the previous discussion, that there was no recognition that this page has only been written by the subjects manager and the manager alone, with no other contributors, and seems to only exist as a promotional tool. In addition, there seemed to be some consensus that the subject is somehow notable but I have failed to see any evidence of notability. Having a bunch of articles written about a video that the subject appeared in doesn't seem to satisfy the notability requirements on Wikipedia and I have seen no discussion proving otherwise. There have been no reputable news sources covering the subject specifically (eg. a Huffington Post article about subject), and those articles that do exist are only from random blogs who seem to have regurgitated a press release by subject's representation, and only cover an insignificant release by the subject that has not charted on the Billboard 100 (or similar), not received radio play and not received any other notable press attention. Also, upon reviewing the previous AfD process, it almost seems like there was more a discussion about the reason it was proposed for deletion in the first place - ie. a bad faith nomination by an editor who was angry that their page was deleted (because their subject wasn't notable) and simply wanted to come on and find another page which also seemed un-notable and nominate it for deletion to prove a point. I can understand this isn't desirable behavior but I wonder if the desire to reject this sort of behavior played into the reasoning and final decision to keep (although I assure you I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering a possible reason for the discussion not having explored all the issues). This, therefore, would seem to be the first discussion actually looking at the issues of whether the subject should have a Wikipedia page or not. I have no ulterior motive, from an objective standpoint I don't see the benefit of this page on Wikipedia, especially as it is entirely written by an editor with a close professional relationship. If subject was that notable, wouldn't she have gained enough recognition in the media for a completely partial and non-connected editor to create the article? That doesn't seem to be the case here, again, the only content being written by someone unlikely to be objective and neutral. The question is, would the article even exist if the subject's 'manager' hadn't written it? Jslix201 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a mess. According to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Katja Glieson, this page is proposed for deletion because of WP:COI (which is not suitable grounds for deletion) and lack of notability and being "of little value" to WP. The page was already proposed for deletion six months ago and the result was keep. WP:BADFAITHONOM was alleged and I have to concur. The nominator for today's AfD is a SPA opened earlier this month who has only edited this article and asked an editor who voted keep on the first AfD to reconsider. The nominator for the original AfD, while not a SPA, has had few edits and got in an edit war over this article over his assertion that subject is not notable (ANI). OK I have just done way too much research for this AfD, but my opinion is subject, although weak, meets the minimum requirements for GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. None of this seems to deal with the issues I've raised, or provides any evidence of notability, or of the article being in existence for any other reason than the subject's manager decided to create it for promotional purposes (which he seemingly has admitted to on the Talk page of the article!). It is true that WP:COI is not suitable grounds for deletion, but surely the motives for the creation of the article should be taken into account, and the point that it's CLEAR that subject is not notable enough that anyone other than the manager himself would have written the article. Just because an article was voted to be kept previously, does not mean that the issues have been thoroughly discussed or any evidence has been presented aside from opinions. Also, I believe it's policy to not discriminate against newer users? Thus making the argument that I have only edited this page moot, and, with all due respect to you, should not then devalue or dismiss my logical arguments for deletion. Jslix201 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I concur with the previous AfD. The subject meets GNG via sources provided. Weakly meets GNG, but still meets GNG. I'm not discriminating toward newer users; It's common at AfD to point out when people contributing to discussion have few or no votes outside of subject, indicating SPA. There's even a template to add that information (Template:Spa) but I think it's better to simply state outright. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the creator of the article, I felt I should say something and express my opinion. I was not present in previous discussion. I did try to follow the procedure for neutrality but do have to concede that it is unlikely that the article would have been created if it were not for me and I did originally find it difficult to be neutral. I'm sure you're used to dealing with sketchy music industry managers who try to get their artists published on WP. I don't feel I fit into that category and have no qualms about being honest. Katja is a great artist and has done some great shows and been in a notable video. But all of this discussion is tiresome and messy as you say, and frankly I would prefer that the article be deleted and only recreated at a later date when notability is not in question (if that should occur) and someone else unconnected to the subject (ie. Not myself) would feel compelled to create it so that the content is not written by me at all. It is true I have been the sole contributor to the article (other than cleanups) from a content point of view, and I don't like that fact. It was not my intention for it to be that way. I only want her to be on WP when she's truly and unquestionably notable. I don't know the weight of the opinion of the creator of the article and frankly am quite surprised at those voting to keep it given the arguments set forth in this and the previous discussions. But I thought I should say, in good faith, that I have no objection to deletion. Benjackson77 (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment —I'm not sure why "if it hadn't been for the person who created this article, this article never would have been created" is an argument. The article was created almost two years ago and has been edited by 48 accounts/people. In all likelihood, given her exposure, particularly with the recent meme, someone would have made an article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an argument persay, just an assumption of fact given A. I've been the only contributor of content (despite the 48 editors) and B. The creator of the meme (and performer in the other 3 rap battle videos) has not had an article created about her, so I'm guessing it hasn't sparked enough interest for an article. Benjackson77 (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....why would anyone else create an article about her if there already was an article about her? —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Considering the article solely on its current condition and merits, I see several reliable sources that cover Glieson, so the article passes WP:GNG.

Addressing the concerns of the nominator: a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. If a new article is created that is blatantly promotional but can be fixed—rewritten in a neutral tone with reliable sources—we fix it rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Yes, the original editor may have had a conflict of interest, but many independent editors have worked on the article since then. That mitigates any concerns that may have existed at the creation of the article over a year ago. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! That's good news! So given this, can we remove the warning about conflict of interest? Having that at the top makes the article seem dubious and as you say, there have been other editors and the issues have been resolved a long time ago since I created it. I just wanted to be honest and clear that if there is an ongoing problem I'm not adverse to deleting it if needed, to act in good faith. Benjackson77 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I procedurally nominated this on behalf of another user, the subject satisfies WP:GNG and I see no valid reason for deletion. Safiel (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the references establish notability at a glance (unless someone who's dug into them comes up with evidence otherwise). De-promofy and this should be fine as a Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sufficient RSes: she's mentioned in numerous non-trivial articles. It passes GNG. I agree with David that it needs de-promofying but that's a separate issue and no hindrance to remaining.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Several of the Rses do not mention the artist by name, but a handful do. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that the references provided within the article are sufficent to establish WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pretty much my last AFD comment - The promo needs removing but overall notability is there and IMHO it simply needs tidying not deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LearningRx[edit]

LearningRx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has "referenciness" but the references are not reliable independent sources. The closest it gets is a recycled press release in the New York Times. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A lot of topics from years back have references from old coverage, but still need to be kept on Wikipedia. Just because they're old topics, doesn't mean they don't require coverage on Wikipedia. This meets the Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. The company is a huge chain with branches all over America.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So they might, but this one doesn't. You restored a bunch of primary and unreliable sources. What it needs is reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most are not primary, they are independent.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: LearningRX has been around for a while but it didn't show any benefits nor received any positive feedback from research or practicing psychologists. Lack of reliable sources clearly demonstrate this point.Wiki-shield (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Please keep an eye on this user (permanent link). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also many results can be found for this subject in the search options provided above. It is notable and been discussed for a long time to be added.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do not be misled by what at first glance appears to be RS coverage, e.g. Chicago Trib. The entries I've seen are either from "community contributors" or are press releases (often even with the press release boilerplate still appearing at the end). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Old version of the article before it was blanked out.--Taeyebaar (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Hurley, Dan (2013). Smarter: The New Science of Building Brain Power. London: Penguin Books. pp. 58–64. ISBN 0698148495. Retrieved 2015-05-25.

     See https://books.google.com/books?id=7ZDIAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT49 for the chapter titled "LearningRx". The book discusses LearningRx for roughly seven pages.

  2. Hurley, Dan (2012-11-04). "The Brain Trainers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

     On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.

     “We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”

  3. Lima, Christina (2006-11-30). "LearningRx offers help to struggling students". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

     Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.

     Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.

  4. Miranda, Maricella (2010-06-27). "New option for struggling students - Program uses drills instead of tutoring to 'train' the brain". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

     She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.

     The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.

     Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.

     But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.

     Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.

  5. "Program designed to make learning easier". Daily Herald. Associated Press. 2009-02-21. Archived from the original on 2014-12-31. Retrieved 2014-12-31.

     The article notes:

     LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.

     ...

     Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.

     ...

     The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow LearningRx to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reliable sources listed above. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Note: I voted "delete" at the last AFD.) I'm rather shocked at the state of this article and at the edit warring taking place since this AFD was initiated, essentially between Nom and Taeyebaar. At the moment, the article is almost completely blanked so it is hard to see what we are using as the basis of this discussion. I looked at the last pre-revert edit by Taeyebaar, and still do not see RS that would bring this up to notability. I do not understand why Taeyebaar is so determined to keep the article when there is so little about this company. And I'm not clear on what sources SilverSurfingSerpant considers to be reliable of the ones above -- it would be good to be more specific. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Journalist Dan Hurley's book published by Penguin Books provides around seven pages of coverage about LearningRx. Hurley's article in The New York Times also provides nontrivial coverage of the subject. There is also detailed coverage about LearningRx's history from The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the Associated Press. I have added some of that information to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have restored the article without unreliable sources like Yelp, as well as expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I said in my comments on the first AfD, I think that the article conflates LearningRx as a franchise business and the whole issue of cognitive training. Cognitive training is covered elsewhere, so there only needs to be links from this article. The questions that remain for this article are: is this about the franchise as a business? and: Does LearningRx have a unique product? Reference #1 is about the former. None of the other references address the latter. I'm still struggling to see what it is about this company that is of interest. LaMona (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dan Hurley's book and the newspaper sources (like The New York Times article and the St. Paul Pioneer Press article) discuss how LearningRx as a franchise was established.

  Sample quote:

  The LearningRx program stemmed from the work of Dr. Ken Gibson, a specialist in visual processing from Wisconsin, and his brother Keith Gibson, a clinical psychologist.

  The two collected data for more than 15 years, showing that short, intense cognitive training helped patients stay more on task, recall facts more easily and process information faster, the company said. They developed a series of exercises and held an academic conference in 1985 publicizing their findings to educators and doctors.

  The brothers refined the exercises for 16 years while they tested the program and relied on the input of educators and psychologists.

  Their work led to LearningRx, which opened its first clinic seven years ago.

  This is enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. "Does LearningRx have a unique product" is not a notability criterion at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cunard (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The policies provide only very general concepts of notability. The notability criteria there are not a substitute for the human intelligence that is creating WP, nor should it be considered absolutely complete. We do get to use our brains in this process -- otherwise, WP could be entirely created by bots. I'm trying to figure out what makes this company of interest, not just whether it can be shoe-horned into some policy category. To my reading, it hasn't done anything worthy of note, and the fact of a few routine articles about it doesn't make it of interest. LaMona (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What's this got to do with interest??? There are hundreds of articles here on Wiki covering boring topics, but they are well covered thus satisfying general notability.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. If articles were kept based on interest, then only articles that the average Wikipedian (Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The "average Wikipedian") found interesting would be kept. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline takes the focus off interest and places it squarely on sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources therefore meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify or Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH currently. No problem with removing the claims, and reducing to a stub iff the org has coverage. Conflation of a business and a scientific claim. Classic PR stuff. The latter should be held to WP:MEDRS. Widefox; talk 11:06, 29 May 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 Veden Manor. With the redirect having already been done. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Petterson[edit]

Johannes Petterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Little independent notability, does not even list death year. Link to an offline article as well as a census entry which does not confer notability. The article is mainly a WP:COATRACK for listing his (admittably impressing list of) descendants. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since the nomination, the article creator has redirected the article to Veden Manor, which looks to me as if it is notable. PWilkinson (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect looks like a good choice. The original article was mostly unsourced genealogical information. Since it was the article creator who redirected it, I think we could almost speedy-close this as a kind of G7 situation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 28 May 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) 19:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Specht[edit]

Cecelia Specht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail GNG, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing and she's never seemed to have something more than a few episodes of a show. Not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Bit actor, non-notable roles, lack of depth of coverage in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only source is IMdB, and that is not a reliable source. Non-notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in this article shows they're notable- the article just says they did some university degrees and is married to a notable person. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Globe International[edit]

Miss Globe International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reads like advertising and fancruft based on related sources The Banner talk 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was nominated for deletion in 2010. I closed that discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International) as Keep based on reliable news sources that User:Drmies found. At that time I also cleaned up the article and removed contentious BLP material, leaving it like this: [2]. I got involved again in Jan & Feb 2011, cleaning it up as it had drifted into a long list: [3]. This time I left it like this: [4], which includes the concern tags that it relies a lot on primary sources. I also moved the name from Miss Globe International to Miss Globe Organisation based on my research. In 2013 there was another Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe Organisation, based on this version [5]. There was no support for the nomination, and two keeps. The discussion was closed as No consensus. In March of this year an IP editor changed the Miss Globe International redirect into a duplicate article: [6]. So now we have two articles with the same content, but different names. My suggestion is that the redirect is restored, and the discussion takes place on the article with the editing history: Miss Globe Organisation, which would make this the third AfD on this article. Now, there are a number of mentions of the Miss Globe pageants: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc, plus the numerous foreign language sources. As has been brought up in previous discussions, the Miss Globe pageants do get media coverage, sufficient to meet our notability guidelines: that is, it has had significant coverage in several independent reliable sources - nothing major, but just enough. The problem is not so much the notability of the pageants, but the messy nature of the article, and that nobody is willing and able to sit down with the article and write it up properly. Added to which is the very vague information regarding the history of the pageant. The claim by the organisers is that it goes back to 1925. I couldn't find much on that. And just now I came upon this blog: [12], which feels that there is no real history going back to 1925. Interesting. However - while the article is problematic, it does meet notability guidelines. So this will be a Keep from me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at current sources it appears that Miss Globe International would be the better name for the article. I think it changed name in 2011 to Miss Globe Organisation, but has since gone back to Miss Globe International. What I propose doing is renaming Miss Globe Organisation to Miss Globe International, and then merging the history as appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable, passes WP:GNG with significant coverage as shown by Silk Tork. Kraxler (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination was for advertising and fancruft based on related sources... The Banner talk 18:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs editing not deletion. As above the topic has sufficient coverage to establish notability and I see SilkTork has sorted out the duplication of articles. While the article needs improving it is not the "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that the deletion policy would say we should delete. Davewild (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wild reverence[edit]

Wild reverence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite the title this article is primarily interested in the fish which are the subject of the film and the film's creator. I can find no evidence that the film itself is notable and the article itself is borderline opinion piece, borderline advertising. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I don't necessarily agree with the nominator about the content of the article (it's an article about a documentary, so the synopsis is going to summarize the film's content, which happens to be about steelhead decline -- you really can't synopsize the film without describing this phenomeon, at least from the filmmaker's viewpoint), I do agree that this film is not notable. It is Anderson's first film as a director; his previous career was as a professional skier, so it's not clear that he's going to receive a lot of attention for this effort. The film is self-produced (he founded North Fork Studios expressly for the purpose of producing this film) and self-financed (apparently through Kickstarter), so there won't be any press about the film's financing. It has not received any notice press yet, outside of the limited Pacific Northwest fly fishing community. (His film does get mentioned at a number of blogs in that community, but no reliable sources.) If it does, then the article can be created then, but not now. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. While I too disagree with the nominator's interpretation of the article on this documentary film, I used some smarts and found the correct film title and was thus able to make some improvements and added cites to the article. The issue covered is real and of concern to the Pacific Northwest, but despite it screening at multiple film festivals, it has not (yet) gained the coverage to meet inclusion criteria. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Exactly the same reason as WikiDan61- the sources are limited to a very select community, so fails WP:GNG and wP:NFILM. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 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) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Ryu[edit]

David Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Los Angeles is a huge city with only 15 councilmembers for a city of 4 million. It has the highest ratio of constituents per councilmember anywhere in the United States. Therefore, being an Los Angeles City Councilmember is notable. Flawed nomination. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep – Los Angeles, being the very huge city that it is, is very notable. So are its councilmembers. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• While Wikipedia does not confer inherent notability on city councillors in most cities under WP:NPOL, we do accept articles about city councillors in major, internationally famous metropolitan global cities such as Los Angeles — that is considered to satisfy NPOL #3. The article certainly needs improvement, but the volume of coverage will increase given that he only just won election a week ago — so the fact that the article isn't already in a GA/FA state has no bearing on anything. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Los Angeles is among the biggest cities in the world and as one of just 15 council members, Ryu seems to clearly pass the WP:POLITICIAN threshold. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 May 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 to delete this article, while leaving open the possibility of a differently formated article on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of Australian professional football teams[edit]

Colours of Australian professional football teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article claims to be about the colors of the teams, but doesn't actually mention the colors, nor does it have any sources. Only content is an uncredited copy-and-paste move from Australian_Football_League#Current_clubs Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep - top league in the country and discussion of colours of leagues has been a topic elsewhere. There have been controversies and the AFL has some interesting rules to avoid colour clashes (away team /white shorts except Swans etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue that it's not a top league, but what is offered by this article that isn't already at Australian_Football_League#Current_clubs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:A10, per Ahecht. There is no scope to expand this to a useful article. The customs relating to clash guernseys and coloured shorts are useful content, but that wouldn't fit on a page of this name. Aspirex (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article, which is just a copy-paste job that doesn't really discuss the subject. I expect that an actual article talking about the colours of teams in all codes might be interesting, and a delete decision here shouldn't preclude an article being written on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation under another format, along Lankiveil's lines. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreation per the above comments; userfy on request. In any case, it has been a week and there is still no mention of colours. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:48, 28 May 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Prakash Sharma[edit]

Bhagawati Prakash Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page created by employee of University to promote them. Salt and burn. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll simply comment for now as academics is not my comfort zone but I thinking salting is unnecessary as the only other time it was deleted was a "blanked by author" last month. SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. In the Indian system, vice chancellor is the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post" as demanded by WP:PROF#C6. The question should be whether Pacific University Udaipur is a "major academic institution" as also demanded by that criterion. My feeling is that membership in the Association of Indian Universities is a reasonably clear test for this, in which case it passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. University vice-chancellors are generally notable. Yes, the question is whether this is a major academic institution, but I think he scrapes through. Some rather over-zealous comments from the nominator, I feel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated by David Eppstein, in the Indian system, vice chancellor is the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post" which should satisfy WP:PROF. The university, though not one of the most prominent ones, seems notable enough to be considered close to what we call a "major academic institution", if not that. — Yash! ^(Y) 02:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He passes a criteria of notability for academics. The article could use improvement, but the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 29 May 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 this product does not meet the WP:General notability guideline. --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planetimer[edit]

Planetimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sign of WP:NOTABILITY in article; Google results are a sea of sales sites, rather than anything indicating real notability. User ID of article creator is the same as name of item's inventor. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow, I wish I had been here in August to say delete as searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found nothing, non-notable watch article which should've been deleted the first time. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is just spam, written by the guy who invented and patented this strange timepiece. DOwenWilliams (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Interesting mechanism, but one whose encyclopedic notability is not demonstrated in reliable sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewers,
Thank you for the editing and propositions to improve my article and I’m glad to read the critics.
Based on Wikipedia criterion, I’d like to appeal to the nomination of Planetimer article to AfD:
1) This article is not original research, as the content corresponds and in accordance to proven and investigated theory of mechanics and by essence describes the aggregates as assembling solutions of gears, at least based on advanced by NASA gear bearing technology (http://itpo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/gsc_14207_1_gearbearing.pdf) applied to watch mechanics;
2) In spite of this developments are not as design as really qualitatively new technical solutions the article was written in neutral point of view manner, as a kind of mechanical watch realization;
3) The article content is Verifiable as patented by WIPO, has passed the expertise by the essence by Swiss and Netherlands accredited experts and published in Worldwide database with the reference on the bottom of the article;
4) This article was written by author and owner of patent rights, so it has not copyright problems a priori.
Best regards,
Sergiy Sheyko--www.planetimer.com 15:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)

Sergiy, none of that conquers the concerns that are being expressed by multiple editors above, that this article fails Wikipedia notability standards. We're just not finding significant secondary sources talking about the planetimer, which is what our General Notability Guidelines call for. If you want to conquer that concern, you'd best find some verifiable secondary sources discussing your invention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, yes, formally you are right; really, I do not paid attention to publish in any others independent sources. However, by essence the topic describing the assembling of well proved and verifiable solutions doesn’t need additional confirmation, it is obviously not the fake! Moreover patent expertise is much more professional, as many others magazine’s examinations.

By appealing to DOwenWilliams about “strange timepiece” – in spite of elegancy, these solutions are the most optimal and reliable for realization of watch gear reduction mechanism, allowing at least to create the slimmest movement.
www.planetimer.com 20:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiy Sheyko (talk • contribs)

• Delete. @Sergiy Sheyko: while the claims of the article are true, most likely, this does not solve the problem of notability. Just being true and useful is not enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines; they most likely will not be changed to fit your article.

For your information, I would also point out that being granted a patent is not scientific validation in the slightest - a few perpetual motion machines have been granted patents. It is, in essence, legal validation: for some invention that does something in some way, intellectual property is granted to the inventor over any machine that does a similar thing in a similar way, and the patent examination aims to check that the patent can be granted under law (that usually forbids over-broad patents, patenting of abstract ideas, and bear other limitations). Whether the method does, in fact, do what it claims is irrelevant. Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be. @Tigraan: The perpetual comparison is inappropriate. These devices are in full concordance to physics, and simply they present another visualization way by optimal arrangements of gears and drivers. If the devices do the same in different ways it could not be irrelevancy, especially if it goes about esthetics, and if new solution is more reliable along with taking of less volume.
  

Please not to be so formal, reasonable evaluate, if somebody presents in Wikipedia qualitatively new obvious technical solution what the problem?! Moreover patents are really disclose and prove, however the required notable articles only presents.
Sergiy Sheyko (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clearly not notable. Also, obvious WP:COI. PianoDan (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To be. @PianoDan: It have not seen any the critics by the essence, only formal criteria and any modification how it should be. Obvious sabotage.

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) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Agal[edit]

Sanjay Agal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of significance, page created by subject himself for self promotion. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely fails notability guidelines because none of the sources discuss the subject in detail, only mentioning the name does not indicate significance. I also think that some of the sources are not reliable.— Supdiop ^talk 12:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG -War wizard90 (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone appears to have mistaken this place for LinkedIn. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar profile [13] and the evidence within the article makes it clear that he does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 24 May 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. Both the balance of arguments and the relevant BLP considerations favor deletion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Schneider (Florida dentist)[edit]

Howard Schneider (Florida dentist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: WP:PERP seems to apply more here, since the victims were not renowned national or international figures, it is WP:TOOSOON to call this a "well-documented historic event", and he has not been convicted in a court of law. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Two of the keep !votes here were either from single-purpose accounts or sockpuppets.

• Keep. BLP1E doesn't apply, since the alleged abuse has been going on for nearly 40 years (according to Sarris), and Schneider has had brushes with the law before (including once in 2000). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS really applies here. It is admittedly serious if a dentist has performed unnecessary procedures on children (especially if it is extraction of permanent teeth). Careful investigation, proof that this has taken place, would be useful. The international media has whipped up a firestorm of rumor and innuendo, though, about one dentist, including a phone video of a child apparently screaming in a dentist chair. Some complaints are that he capped teeth that should have been pulled, others that he pulled teeth that should have been capped. It is possible that he's looked after poor children who had not properly seen a dentist, who had teeth in more poor condition than a non-medicaid dentist. There are many many incompetent professionals, it is alarming that while nothing is proven about this particular one (though it is likely he is incompetent or unethical) a small case has blown up to an international news story with many confusing and contradictory accusations arising suddenly. A tabloid newspaper can just join the rumor mill. Wikipedia can be more thoughtful.Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: There are a great deal of sources available speaking toward this individual's many-years-long series of alleged multiple and repeated crimes, but under WP:PERPETRATOR we need tread lightly. The historic significance of the crimes is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role, and we have those in spade. WP:BLP1E is less applicable as we have coverage of the years long and repeated accusations of the different offenses of 1) alleged "Medicaid fraud" and 2) alleged "child abuse". BUT a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Is there such an article? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not currently. But it might be possible to rename this article and change the focus to refer to Schneider's alleged crimes rather than Schneider himself. Perhaps the article could be called Jacksonville dental abuse scandal or something like that. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't write an article about his "crimes" at this time, because none of them are verified. Everything is "alleged" and "accused". --MelanieN (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply,. end of story. this is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but WP:PERP applies. His victims were not renowned national or international figures, it is WP:TOOSOON to call this a "well-documented historic event", and he has not been convicted in a court of law. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As has been stated already, BLP1E doesn't apply as the as the abuse went on for several years, making the abuse multiple events. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the sockpuppet wasn't being used for vote stacking (since the puppetmaster didn't also !vote here), so that's not entirely relevant. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep even though the article is almost wholly negative, it's well-sourced, and the sources show significant coverage over a long time period. Should it be moved to Howard Schneider (dentist) though? The word Florida seems unnecessarily specific. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is another practicing dentist by the name Howard Schneider, who lives in New York. Many people have gotten the two mixed up, and the Dr. Schneider in New York has received hate mail and threats from people confusing him with the Florida dentist, so I thought it best to clarify in the title that this article was about the Florida dentist, not the New York one. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the sources DON'T show "coverage over a long time period". All the sources are from May 2015. --MelanieN (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This source is from April. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, April 29. Good thing you caught MelanieN in that gross overgeneralization. Can we have an overdue close on this, please? EEng (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. May soon become more relevant and used to describe an abusive dentist or overtreating dental clinic. i.e. "My dentist is a Schneider", "Schneideresque dentistry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mny5339 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Mny5339 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is not a reason to keep an article. --166.20.224.11 (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That argument is textbook WP:ATA#CRYSTAL: "It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is alleged that the abuse goes back many years, but all of this is being reported only in the last week, so it's BP1E and/or TOOSOON. EEng (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If this happens to be one of those "wikipedia not being news" cases, close the article down for now, and wait to remake the article until the dentist gets enough coverage to be more than just a news article. It'll be interesting to see where the backstory of this evil scumbag will go. Seriously, stay the hell away from that dentist. 和DITOREtails 00:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Violates WP:BLP and WP:PERP. Everything is "alleged" or "accused". None of the allegations against him have been proven, they are just allegations - apparently most of them filed by plaintiffs in civil suits; if ever there was an unreliable source, it is the claims made in a civil suit! Others are complaints of child abuse - complaints which anyone can make, justified or not, and the authorities must investigate. If he ever gets actually convicted of anything, we can rewrite the article. In the meantime, it is a mess of unverified claims and innuendo, and should have no place at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If WP:NOTNEWS or WP:BLP isn't enough, then I'm happy to go with WP:IAR. We're an encyclopedia. We're not a tabloid, and we're not a police blotter. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G4 by User:Chrislk02 (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Edwards (publicist)[edit]

Alan Edwards (publicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Only sources are press releases. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was a recreation of an article removed in April.. The Banner talk 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Due to failing to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Paterson (baseball)[edit]

Chris Paterson (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Long career as a manager in the independent leagues, he is now with Sioux Falls in the American Association.. doesnt satisfy BASE/N or GNG. Article appears to have been written as a vanity page or resume. Spanneraol (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Notable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment by banned sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Managed some not particularly notable basketball teams, and appears to be vanity page. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASE/N and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable individual due to insufficient coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Mellowed is no longer an editor in good standing, and that therefore his !vote does not count. Ma^t_chups 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This comment was written while he WAS an editor in good standing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 26 May 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 prior to any further input

Search Press[edit]

Search Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Although the company claims to have won two awards from the Independent Publishers Group, it is not clear how notable these awards are, or what level of notability they might impart to the company. It does not appear that any trade publications picked up the story, or has covered this company in any way. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn -- too soon for an AFD. Giving the article time to grow. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 21 May 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) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gartrell[edit]

Stefan Gartrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Relatively unremarkable baseball player. Low round draft pick, never played in the majors, currently playing in indy ball. Failed baseball notability guidelines and no evidence of passing GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete From San Francisco, but the San Francisco Chronicle has no coverage of him that would surpass WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this piece from the Gainesville Times would count towards GNG, so if we find enough pieces like this one, I might change my mind. (This also might, but I'm unfamiliar with the source.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unremarkable player, fails BASE/N. Also appears to fail GNG, having not received enough non-routine coverage. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Playing in independent baseball does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:06, 28 May 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) 19:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future human evolution[edit]

Future human evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is poorly sourced and appears to be mostly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Only one of the cited sources contains the word "evolution," and I find no evidence that this is a subject/topic that is discussed in enough reliable sources to merit its own article. Plus, there's already a discussion of evolution in modern humans in this section of the existing article on human evolution. If anything here is salvageable, I suggest it be merged there. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nope —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom pretty much - extensive sythesis and original research. Whatever isn't belongs in the Human evolution article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly-sourced synthesis. The products mentioned towards the end of the article are real and probably independently notable, but their connection to the ostensible subject of this article is non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can hardly believe I am the first to quote WP:CRYSTAL, but here we go. To be fair, I expected pure speculation, but the speculation is somewhat diluted with semi-encyclopedic content about transhumanism. Tigraan (talk) 14:17, 27 May 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 Online advertising. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online marketing platform[edit]

Online marketing platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Google search for the term shows nothing. No reference in the page either. Doesn't look like a real term or the term never gained enough notability. HireSpeal2015 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect with Online advertising- it's worth a 2-line mention in there. On it's own there is no notability, but it seems like an obscire term in online advertising, so add it there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Online advertising - search reveals this is a commonly used term but I don't see how it needs its own article - WP:NOTDICT . —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Online advertising not a notable term on it's own. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:39, 21 May 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) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan Shiromani[edit]

Rajasthan Shiromani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable award. Nothing shows up on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to minor award; can't find any good references on it whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found mentions of it in The Hindu and an online news source, but nothing substantial that would meet WP:GNG.- MrX 15:25, 21 May 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) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Monroe[edit]

Zoey Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable porn actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO, as multiple nominations are no longer a satisfactory criteria. Fails the WP:GNG, as significant coverage in reliable sources are non-existent. Routine mentions in AVN's own newsletters about AVN nominations and similar press releases are insufficient. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without award wins. Fails WP:GNG without sufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Even if you count the porn trade press as reliable, coverage consists of reworked press releases, interviews and event announcements. I found one AVN article covering the subject with any depth, but that's not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO -- fdewaele, 21 May 2015, 20:41
• Delete - fail —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - fails WP:PORNBIO. –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Can't think why I didn't nominate it for deletion myself when I cleaded it up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:PORNBIO. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:51, 25 May 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. SilverSurfingSerpant is a blocked sockpuppet and as such his view is discounted. As the article has had 7 days to be improved the argument that it should be given time to improve has little weight. Therefore the delete arguments showing the article fails the two applicable notability guidelines have the consensus here. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Simanton[edit]

Jon Simanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP – Notable actor. Listed with multiple acting credits in IMDb. Meets notability for actors, per WP:NACTOR. (LOL. I created this article all of two minutes ago, literally. So, it is still a work in progress. This editor has quite the itchy finger, to nominate it for deletion within two minutes of its creation. LOL.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while I appreciate that the article is new and would normally vote to keep, this is highly concerning. As that article indicates, he had only minor roles, and the charge (and admission of guilt) would be the whole bio and possibly violate WP:UNDUE. You would have to have significant additional content to balance it out. Even though he died in February, WP:BLP applies after recent deaths (WP:BDP). —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. He is either notable or he is not. What does that "concerning" report (about his arrest) have to do with anything? Are you saying that if that "concerning" report did not exist, that would influence whether he is notable or not? Also, the question of whether or not he is notable is a different question than the question of what content should be in his article. When I read your comment above, to me, it says: "I would normally vote to keep this guy with an article, but because he had a criminal charge against him, I will vote to delete". Did I misread? That's the same exact thing as saying: "This guy is notable. But as soon as he was arrested, he became non-notable." Huh? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Give it time to expand. That's what Wikipedia's for after all. Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe the actor is, in fact, notable. Also, you can give the article time to expand. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why has wikipedia become a place where people believe that work on an article can correct a subject's notability? I'm not seeing any criteria at WP:NACTOR that Jon Simanton fulfills. WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles, all of these listed on Imdb seem to be minor roles. Fails WP:GNG also. ― Padenton|✉   13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone believes that "work on an article can correct a subject's notability". I think that the underlying idea is that the person is notable, but that the article still needs work. And no one has yet gotten to that work. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are misinterpreting WP:NACTOR. WP:NACTOR does not "require" multiple significant roles, as you claim. You are cherry-picking sections from the policy. The policy states, quote: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using ((BLP sources)) for example) ..." (emphasis added). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, by all means, explain how he passes notability under WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOTABILITY requires that he either meets WP:GNG or meets one of the subject-specific notability guidelines. Unless there is something else Jon Simanton is known for, the only subject-specific notability guideline that applies is WP:NACTOR, where he does not meet any of the criteria. I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met, given that a google search returns: 1) a local news item that is clearly referring to a different Jon Simanton; 2) a mention on a horror blog (which provides no coverage); 3) an article on his arrest in TMZ (tabloid journalism, not a reliable source, nor significant coverage.); 4) another brief mention at a scifi/horror imdb wannabe. So, can you explain to us exactly which criteria Jon Simanton meets? ― Padenton|✉   17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement that was false and I corrected you, so that whoever reads this discussion will be aware of that. You stated, quote: "WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles ... ". That is an entirely false statement so, for the record here, I corrected you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet the requirement of notability, the subject of an article must meet WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability guidelines, while not being excluded by WP:WWIN. I see nothing showing that WP:GNG has been met, and you are now refusing to provide any. Unless you plan on arguing that criterions 2 or 3 are met, then yes, WP:NACTOR requires that the actor "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." You claimed above that he meets WP:NACTOR, yet I see nothing to support that claim. ― Padenton|✉   14:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 13:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset (video game)[edit]

Sunset (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potentially non-notable game I dream of horses (T) @ 12:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 12:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks notable to me: innovative game from highly-regarded dev house with coverage across a wide range of media.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Notable per sources. Has received significant coverage in Forbes, Digital Spy and CNET. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yeah, the sources listed above look good to me. Forbes.com is a tricky one, though, and the blog posts are frequently written by non-journalists. You need to be careful when you cite it and make sure that the author has journalistic credentials. There seems to be enough coverage already to satisfy the GNG. Plus, it's already starting to get professional review, such as The Washington Post: [23]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources - Not entirely sure on Forbes but DigitalSpy & CNET establish notability. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The Forbes article is authored by a Forbes contributor, with the disclaimer on the page, "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own". Forbes is up there in terms of being reliable, and when selecting the "full bio" link about the author on the page, the credentials are impressive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as clearly meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:49, 22 May 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. Of those arguing based on the notability guidelines, there is a consensus that the article fails the notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Maly[edit]

Brett Maly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. He has appeared on the series Pawn Stars as an infrequently appearing expert in 12 of the 386 episodes that have aired. Other than mentions of his role in the series, there is very little out there about the individual, certainly not enough to establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the deletion of Brett Maly's page. I have worked hard on this article and it is my first.

I have chosen Brett because of his local and regional notoriety (Las Vegas, NV USA) as well as his global exposure on the Pawn Stars TV series from the History channel.

I completely respect you concern and I have read the guidelines and I believe he certainly does qualify for inclusion.

Some of his recent work, which I follow, include the appraisal of a recently discovered Leonardo da Vinci sculpture that is being made into a documentary staring Brett as narrator and art expert.

Please consider these assessments in your decision or kindly ask from me any proof you would need to help strengthen my case and keep this important and developing article in Wikipedia. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on available sources, Maly doesn't seem to have any notability outside of his infrequent appearances on Pawn Stars. I did have to remove some content from the article because it was copied almost word for word from IMDB (which is not considered to be a reliable source), and because of this constituted a copyright violation. I cannot find any evidence of the documentary that you mention, and it was not mentioned in the article. His involvement in the appraisal was mentioned in one source, but that's all it is, a mention. Items of art are appraised every day, that's not a sign of notability. Who was the person who appraised the Mona Lisa for example? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may never know who appraised The Mona Lisa because their page may have been removed from Wikipedia. Joking, of course, but more to the point is the documentary that has a trailer already produced and can be viewed at http://thelostleonardo.com. I have not updated this information because of the status of this page. I am new to this even if I have made minor edits over the past 8 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows nothing on this documentary, which isn't even mentioned at IMDB. It doesn't establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary is brand new and has just finished pre-production. Also, the content you removed from this page was my own. I wrote it. It was also posted on IMDB (not by me) without my permission; which I would have gladly gave. They "borrowed" my writing, not the other way around.

Please, just give this article a chance. It's not contrived nor serving some furtive motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradernet (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Made a notable appearance on a notable show SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters are not generally considered notable. WP:ENT specifically requires that the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This person has had only 12 recurring appearances in Pawn Stars and one appearance in another program. This does not make his appearances notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources suggest a local presence only, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Brett is quite notable on Pawn Stars and other sources and has appeared on many more episodes that listed on IMDB.(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the episodes listed on IMDB, what episodes has he been in? A recurring character is not generally considered notable. What other sources does he appear in that satisfy WP:GNG? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Art apraiser who appeared on a show without generating widespread secondary coverage. The existence of this article is an example of presentism in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has had over 40 appearances on Pawn Stars not 12 as stated on IMDB. I have the episode list if anyone cares.User:tradernet

It doesn't matter how many appearances he has made, notability is not determined by screentime, although I'm yet to see evidence of these additional appearances. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I searched for sources and was able to find primarily passing mentions in Las Vegas media, though there were passing mentions in other media as well.

  Examples:

  1. This article from the U.K. edition of The Huffington Post:

     They include American Brett Maly, who has been used by Las Vegas billionaire Steve Wynn to value masterpieces from Picasso, da Vinci and Salvador Dali.

     Brett last month sent Andy a report saying the drawing was worth $2.1million - but has also told him it could fetch 10 times that.

  2. This article^WebCite from Good Morning America:

     "I was told by Brett Maly that this is the earliest example of pop art and Warhol did it in when he was 11 years old," Fields said.

     Brett Maly is an art appraiser for Las Vegas-based fine art dealer, Art Encounter. Fields showed Maly the drawing shortly after he bought it at a Las Vegas garage sale in 2010. Maly valued the drawing at $2.4 million, according to Fields.

  There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Brett Maly to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:30, 30 May 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. There is a clear consensus for keep but not for a rename. Though I am for a rename, the article will have to be re written a bit for that so the title does not differ from the content. I suggest someone start a rename proposal at the talk page perhaps. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mosul (2015)[edit]

Battle of Mosul (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page clearly violates the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy of wikipedia, trying to promote an alleged battle to "liberate Mosul", which may or may not take place in the future GreyShark (dibra) 11:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename - if there are sufficient, reliable sources about this offensive, I don't see why it should be deleted, as long as there is no WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. Many planned events have articles. And Military intervention against ISIL is incredibly long, so I support the fork. However, the battle infobox should be removed (as it contains the projected info such as military leaders) and perhaps the article should be rename to indicate it is planned, such "2015 planned offensive in Mosul" or whatever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - No battle has occurred, and many analysts are saying that any offensive by the Iraqi Government on Mosul may be delayed until 2016 due to recent defeats in Anbar Province. It need to be rewritten to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Gazkthul (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it it - Because I highly doubt that anyone would be willing to rename it back to Liberation of Mosul. This article is about a planned offensive, like the D-Day invasion, only it hasn't happened yet. Reliable sources point to the fact that the battle is planned to begin in August or September 2015, and since the current article title bears the correct year for the starting point of the offensive, it should not be renamed at the moment. Also, due the huge significance and importance of this event, and the preparations and pre-offensive events leading up to it, the article should be neither merged nor deleted, as it is too important not to have its own article, just like how Liberation of Paris and Fall of Berlin were all events that were significant enough to have their own distinguished articles. Since the Liberation of Mosul will be a turning point in the War on ISIL, at least in Iraq, the article should be kept as it is. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep (and probably rename). Seems to me that a large part of the current content has nothing directly to do with a planned "Battle of Mosul" offensive - we have a long day to day list of incidents but many of them, such as the air strikes, have nothing to distinguish them from similar incidents elsewhere in Iraq or Syria and have no supporting sources that state they were directly connected to (i.e., directly supporting) a planned campaign by Iraq to retake Mosul from IS forces. It is almost a case of OR or Synthesis to group them all together in this way. Yet at the same time they are all connected in that they are all military actions that took place in the Mosul area against IS. So I think either a rename is needed (perhaps to something like "Military interventions against IS in Mosul"), or a drastic pruning of the existing content is needed to remove anything that is not directly connected by sources to a planned offensive to capture Mosul. And the battle infobox has to go - if it is a future campaign details like belligerents and strength of forces are speculation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is. I don't see any problems with it, it seems fine as it is. Славянский патриот (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per LightandDark2000 and name change is probably going to change its actual meaning. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't see much of a problem with the "Liberation" title (take Liberation of Paris, for example), but since it hasn't actually happened yet, it would be too much of a stretch to go on to rename the article at this time. LightandDark2000 (talk)

• Keep but rename - The crystalballing has been ongoing for a while, especially in regards to the title. It used to be called 'liberation' but was changed to the more appropriate 'battle'. This supposed battle is not going to take place any time soon and efforts to predict a future event should not be allowed. There are however enough sources to warrant a rewrite of the article to make it more encyclopaedic. Mbcap (talk) 12:31, 26 May 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union[edit]

Aligarh Muslim University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Created by an SPA, the only source in the article is primary, and that generally goes for most hits in Google as well; others are either routine, unreliable, or are passing mentions at best. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; the tabloid sources provided do not provide verifiability for the subject. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no significant coverage -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The possibility of a redirect was mentioned, but consensus favors deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University[edit]

Law Society, Aligarh Muslim University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real evidence of notability, despite a huge amount of refspam. Created by an SPA, all sources in the article are primary, unreliable, routine, republished promotional/PR stuff, or barely even mention the society itself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence of significant coverage. possibly SPEEDY under advert requiring complete rewrite to make it not spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not seeing any extensive coverage. Neutrality^talk 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per solely WP:PROMO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As mentioned above, this is almost a candidate for speedy, and is simply part of a veritable fiefdom of articles surrounding a university whose students have a history of spamming the site with non-notable articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Plausible redirect to the University, so not eligible for deletion on grounds of notability (WP:R). Has a notable alumnus, a member of the Indian Parliament. I see references in other books in GBooks to the "Aligarh Law Society Review" and "Aligarh Law Society Journal". Worth a mention at least. James500 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I did initially try redirecting this (and everything else along these lines), but was reverted by the SPAs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion is not the correct solution to that kind of dispute. James500 (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no other destination other than AfD at that point, you do realize that? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is the ordinary dispute resolution system. There is WP:3O, Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and WP:RFC. The last one should be immune to control by SPAs as "requests for comment" are centrally listed and normally well attended. Not to mention that WP:SK was recently amended to prevent a "speedy keep" closure in cases where nominators at AfD argue for redirection without deletion (though whether consensus was assessed correctly there is disputed, and it doesn't mean the nomination can't be rejected in other ways). If you want a page to be redirected, it doesn't make any sense to argue for deletion. In any event that approach is prohibited by ATD, BEFORE, PRESERVE and R. The bottom line is that WP:R says that lack of notability isn't a valid grounds for deleting a page that is a plausible redirect, lack of notability being the whole point of redirecting sub-topics. The single criteria that we have for that is to the effect of "redirect is positively harmful". James500 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 3O would do very little. Proposed mergers is only valid if I was proposing a merger, and since you're so up on the bureaucracy, you should know full well that most proposed mergers don't even get a single reply, and those that do rarely actually go anywhere. RfC is essentially no better than proposing a merger. Stop throwing around the alphabet soup as if I'm a new editor who doesn't know what they're doing. I initially redirected the page, yes, but there's no guarantee this is a necessary redirect. And even if it is, then there's also nothing wrong with deleting the existing spam and just starting a brand new redirect in its place... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to express my support for everything Luke said, above. In my view, AfD is a perfectly acceptable (and indeed preferable) avenue for discussion when an article on a not-independently-notable topic is redirected and an editor reverts the edit. Neutrality^talk 21:57, 28 May 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) 19:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University[edit]

University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability guidelines. Created by an SPA, ridiculously promotional in content, and all the sources in the article are primary, unreliable, don't work, or don't actually provide any real coverage of the club in question - that's what the Times of India "source" falls into, because there's actually nothing in it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete part of a continual spam campaign by COI SPA editors. probably qualifies for SPEEDY under ADVERT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - agree wholly with above. Neutrality^talk 01:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, again, from the same editor WP:PROMO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the citations are passing mentions in tabloids for a film festival associated with this club, not the club itself. There is no proof of notability, and the advertising/spamming issue mentioned above is also highly suspect. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11 by Chrislk02 (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka City - Tourist Guide[edit]

Dhaka City - Tourist Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. It reads like an essay/blog. There is already an article catering to tourism in Bangladesh - Tourism in Bangladesh. Needs a complete rewrite if it is meant to be Tourism in Dhaka. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow delete - WP:NOTGUIDE —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Maybe some of the text could be merged into the main Dhaka article. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of it going into Dhaka as that article is already solid, and in fact was a featured article. This article I think is pure promotion, as it includes phone numbers for a tourism company. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As User:Wikimandia says.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 21 May 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) 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Lemmen[edit]

Paul H. Lemmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTEBIO and in particular, WP:PERP, which states that there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage." This person is unremarkable other than the crimes he committed.Legitimus (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly fails WP:PERP Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 09:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:PERP; suggest branching List of impostors#Military impostors to its own article because of extensive, ongoing coverage of these people globally —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:PERP. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:02, 23 May 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 02:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silla Nodigal[edit]

Silla Nodigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film with no notability or refs to be found. Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete. This short film released to YouTube last month does not meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 09:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: promo stub for non-notable film. Quis separabit? 00:46, 29 May 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) 17:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Doughty-Hume[edit]

Ellen Doughty-Hume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability. This is a sportsperson who has competed in some events sufficient to gain minor mention in the specialist press. However I'm far from convinced that these events, or 39th placing, conveys encyclopaedic notability Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 09:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEQUESTRIAN, which lists various achievements sufficient for notability. Media coverage is routine, and routine sports coverage ("X is competing", "X placed 39th") doesn't count for notability. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 21 May 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. Already been speedy deleted by James086 as a copyright violation. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piyush sagar[edit]

Piyush sagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources that establish her notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable by a long shot and there's no actual significance to this article, it teases so promotionally I'm almost tempted to tag it as G11. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 09:02, 21 May 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMP321[edit]

IMP321 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a company's lead compound, which may create issues of notability, reliability, or neutrality. It also may be promotional and there may be a conflict of interest. See the discussion page. Roches (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily mean that the article has all these issues, but I want to see what others think about it. In particular, I am not saying that there is a CoI here, or that the article is promotional. I'm trying to see what should be done for lead compounds in general.

I'm not aware of a guideline or a precedent, but this is a special category of molecule, and I think there should be a guideline for lead compounds in the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some possible issues that would apply to any such article:

1. Notability: The criteria for notability for small molecules seems to be very low; almost anything with a CAS number can get an article with a sentence or two about the compound. But what about large molecules? Is every gene, every protein, every peptide, every antibody, notable?
2. Reliability of sources, neutrality: A small pharmaceutical company hinges on its lead compound. These may remain in development for decades. If FDA approval is obtained, the company's value increases enormously. Until that happens, the company's survival depends on its ability to convince investors that the drug is marketable. This can lead to issues with sources, even scientific papers, and the article may not be NPOV.
3. Promotional, CoI issues: For the same reasons, the Wikipedia article for a lead compound is especially susceptible to a promotional tone or to authorship with a conflict of interest. Authors with a CoI would include shareholders and employees of the company.

There are a lot of companies with a lot of lead compounds. Many of the people who have even heard of a company would have a CoI. And, because the companies need to attract investors who are confident the lead compound is marketable, the presence of a Wikipedia article may create an unfair real-world competitive advantage for companies who have articles for their lead compounds. The biggest issue I have personally is that nearly every lead compound is described as if it is extremely effective and entirely safe. I've been reading about them for long enough that I fail to understand why disease still exists when so many promising drugs have been in the pipeline.

I think it would best to include lead compounds only in the company's article, rather than having separate articles about the lead compound. This company's article, for example, does discuss the lead compound. When the compound is discussed in context, as a company's product, it can be described in the way that Wikipedia requires. When it's discussed as a molecule, I think, there are risks.

Once again, I'm not necessarily asserting these things about this particular lead compound. This should be viewed as a request to merge the information with the parent company article, not to obliterate the information. If it's more appropriate to discuss this in some other way please let me know. Roches (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would argue that, so long as everything is properly referenced, there's no reason why lead compounds can't have articles of their own. Most readers may be interested in the compounds and not the companies, largely because they are accessing the article to lean about new drugs rather than companies in which to invest. To avoid the issues Roches has noted, I suggest that it be Wikipedia policy that such articles require mention that they are a lead compound in the first line OzBioMan (talk) 8:40, 30 April 2015 (AEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 08:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as long as it is properly sourced I also don't see a problem. Of course it needs to be written with WP:NPOV - an issue would be if the article only includes positive information and conveniently skips coverage that is potential negative. I do agree with you that there should be a guideline for this information, and for pharmaceuticals as a whole. It would be helpful if Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology established a notability guideline like other groups have done (for example, academic, athletes etc). We could really use that in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadol. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:20, 21 May 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 no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harts Stores[edit]

Harts Stores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This store chain does not appear to be notable in its own right. I was able to find a number of sources confirming that the Big Bear Stores chain purchased the Harts organization, but no sources that addressed Harts Stores or any similar enterprise in its own right. That leads me to conclude that the store chain is not notable, and any verifiable claims should be merged into Big Bear Stores. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found only one article, mentioning that the store had opened a new store. Not significant coverage. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found a reference going into great detail about Harts stores and added it to page. Moonchïld9 (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moonchïld9: excellent work finding that ref! That said, I am inclined to think that that source still doesn't help establish notability -- that article is really about Big Bear Stores, and Harts Stores is only discussed insofar as Big Bear acquired them. I think that if that's the most substantial coverage we can find in reliable sources then the business is still not especially notable. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Big Bear Stores. A separate article is not necessary as there is limited material and that could be covered within the parent company article. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 08:40, 21 May 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 (nomination withdrawn)(non-admin closure) ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ʿĀd[edit]

ʿĀd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources may prove no evidence of notability as 2 of the three sources lead to 404 errors. Possible hoax? The Snowager-is awake 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two related AfDs about ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad, being Afd'd by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies). --doncram 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are different topics entirely. One is about the tribe/people of ʿĀd. The second is about a person, a descendent of Noah. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just going to copy my findings here where they are more relevant: "I'd had a look to see about deleting, but found "Ubar was the pride of a prideful king—Shaddad, son of King Ad, grandson of Noah" in this, which is given in one of the articles. I'm not sure they're hoaxes. The transcript also states "There were other clues in the library's climate-controlled vaults, tantalizing hints in the Koran, references in the Arabian Nights and Greek and Roman histories, and the works of Islamic geographers. In some books, Ubar was mentioned, but had a different name. Or the Ubarites were called "the People of Ad." But nothing gave Ubar's exact location, or proved it was real." These are likely not hoaxes in our sense, but either not notable or things believed to have existed in some theologies". My conclusion: no hoax, but not encyclopedia notable either. Delete. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to ‘Ad. Unnecessary to have entries on both in view of amount of information available. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But ‘Ad is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad), too. Compare: ʿĀd (this article) vs. ‘Ad: different articles. Compare Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ʿĀd (this one, classified with AfD category Indiscernable) vs. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/‘Ad (classified with AfD category for Biographies): the AfDs are different. Of course if they really are one people then articles should be merged. But if one is about a people in Saudi Arabia during one time period, and other is about people somewhere else at some other time, then probably not, though hatnote disambiguation is needed. --doncram 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I copy in my !vote from ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/‘Ad. "If nothing else, Wikipedia should provide comprehensive coverage of peoples! Up with people! If there is doubt whether such a people existed, then say that in the article. It is useful for Wikipedia to cover peoples that are merely hypothesized to have existed by anthropologists, which turn out later to be viewed as within some already-named larger people. This happens for animals, too: e.g. Cape lions of South Africa were considered to be a distinct group, and later argued to be nothing special. Of course if this is a hoax within Wikipedia, then it should be deleted (and recorded somewhere in a list of hoaxes). --doncram 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--doncram 18:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 08:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - what the what? Snowager are you smoking crack? The fact the article is available in 17 languages, including an Arabic version that dates to 2009, should be your first clue this is not a hoax. Or is the best hoax of all time - when a troll invented an entire people, and didn't try to hide the hoax page but linked to it all over Wikipedia, and nobody noticed! Further, the Arabic term is RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE. A quick search shows a gazillion articles, including many, many photos of archeological digs, skeletons and anthropology charts like you'd imagine would be part of research of an ancient civilization. And finally, if any of you happen to speak English, this and this come up on the FIRST page of Google when doing a basic search. Worst. AfD. ever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]