< 26 November	28 November >

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 Space colonization#Mercury. Consensus is more or less to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Mercury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was tagged for WP:PROD by BatteryIncluded with rationale "None of the references cited mention the possibility of colonization of Mercury; this is an assay that used only WP:OR and WP:synthesis." It does not qualify for PROD since it was kept at AfD back in 2006, but as BatteryIncluded puts it on the talk page, "There is no way to improve on a topic that has not been assessed formally in the literature". This nomination is based on a request by BatteryIncluded on the article talk page and what looks to be a reasonable assessment of the article. I'll refrain from issuing my own !vote but will probably comment once I've had a chance to review the available sourcing on the matter. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only somewhat credible source is the article in External links by James Shifflett, a particle physicist,[1] not exactly an expert in the field. On the bright(?) side, he seems to have been plagiarized (or vice versa) by somebody named Alexander Balonkin,[2] based on the little I can see in Google Books; woo hoo. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I mentioned in the talk page, a search using a university database turned up absolutely nothing published with relevance to this topic. No significant entity is entertaining the colonization of Mercury as possible. Many of the statements in the article are unsupported and some of those are obviously false. Remove those statements and what remains is nothing more than an extremely cut down version of Mercury's main article. With these factors in mind, there is no reason for this article to exist and it should have been deleted last time. The arguments used for 'keep' in the last deletion discussion simply baffle me. UnitTwo (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space colonization#Mercury or delete. I found this article on Vice, but there doesn't seem to be a lot out there. Most of the hits I found were brief mentions of fictional colonies. This lack of sources seems to be reflected in the article, which is made up mostly of original research and synthesis. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but it's only a marginal preference over delete. De Guerre (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as suggested by NinjaRobotPirate, to Space colonization#Mercury. Due to the lack of reliable sources available, and the significant amount of original research presented in the current article, I don't think it warrants a separate page. Edgeweyes (talk) 15:06, 1 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kresten Bjerg[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, does not meet any one of the nine criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. His highest Scholar citation score is 12, counter-balanced by a significant number of zeroes. This was (and indeed still is) a draft, Draft:Kresten Bjerg; the WP:COI editor seems to have become impatient with the AfC process and sent it out to try its chances in the big bad world. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet any of the 9 Specific criteria notes at WP:Notability (academics) Theroadislong (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has written in some major psychology journals (for example scandinavian psychology journal and futuriblerne, the danish psychologists associations journal), he has written a textbook in personality psychology that is used by danish universities, and he was one of the first people to start talking about "domestic psychology", his research has most certainly afflicted the way psychologists today talk about it. He has also won copenhagen university's gold medal in psychology. Magnus bjerg (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And about his scholar citations, although he was a pioneer in the use of computers he was mostly active at a time where the internet was not the place you published your material. Magnus bjerg (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is the job of academics to write papers. That does not make them notable. He may be "one of the first" to discuss "domestic psychology", but he appears to be "one of the only" as it is not an idea that seems to have found any traction. None of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to be met. At the AfC Draft version you were asked to identify how he meets those criteria and you cited an award given by his employer.
  - If you can provide evidence other than your word that his book is a widely-used text (and not merely used at the Danish colleges he is affiliated with), then you may have something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't Wikipedia give new articles time to grow? Must Wikipedia run off every new editor? Is there some, "Deletionist's Live Longer" motto somewhere that I've somehow missed? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MurderByDeadcopy: The editor WAS allowed time to let the article grow in the proper place for not really articles, Draftspace. The editor decided to ignore the advice given there that the article was not ready for main space and recreated it in mainspace. Don't blame "deletionsts" for issues caused by headstrong COI editors not wiling to listen to advice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you believe I'm referring to this one particular case, well, I'm not. I've seen it happen time and time again. The fact that Wikipedia now requires completed articles written by one write is counter to how Wikipedia first began. It also enforces the concept of ownership of said article. If you want to talk about COI, well I believe that has become highly misused here on Wikipedia, since from what I've seen according to Wikipedia, editor's should only write on things they know nothing about. But the first rule of writing is, write what you know! I've also seen draft article's get repeatedly denied until the original creator just gives up and leaves Wikipedia, then suddenly after their gone the article gets created. Not to mention that oftentimes those editors who deny drafts are some of the most gung-ho deletionists on Wikipedia. Also, my complaint here isn't about whether I believe Wikipedia should save this article, just that articles should be given time to grow with multiple editors working on the article. (FYI - I think your name here is awesome!) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - - @MurderByDeadcopy: so.... your rant on this page was completely inappropriate venue for your rant. and yet you rant on. People who fetishize getting bigger over quality seem not to learn that such a focus leads to bad results for your reputation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, my rant (?) is completely appropriate here. It's an article that spent a day live on Wikipedia before getting AfD'ed. Larry Sanger said I could write a paragraph about a topic and other editors would come along to flesh out that article. Now, individual editors are required to write huge completed articles all by themselves. If Wikipedia wants it that way, then Wikipedia should allow editors to sign their article and lock it down so that other editors cannot edit that article, but instead make suggestions on the talk page. And no Wikipedia wasn't started because of quality, Wikipedia was always a quantity. Nupedia was about quality. (Also, I've taken to commenting on AfD's mainly because I have deletionist who follow me just to vote the opposite of me! Sometimes they vote anyway, so it's only a small deterrent.) --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose you can keep ranting, if you want, but when you rant in backwaters that have no chance of actually changing processes or procedures, I bet you can guess how effective your ranting will be. And when the basis of you rant is incorrect, don't complain when no one takes your rant seriously. The article did not "spend one day" live before getting hauled to AFD - it spent at least a week in DRAFT space with experienced editors telling the creator that it was not ready for live space. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm... I must have struck a nerve since you are not refuting any of my points (except perhaps that one point about when the article was created) and that one point that you seem insistent on drawing out is still pretty petty since I'd say most/all editors will not touch an article when it's in draft format until the original creator has given up on said article or asked other editors for help. It is, however, obvious, to me, that this conversation is going nowhere so I'll let you have the last word here. Have a nice day! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't any rule that you need to start an article as a draft. I added the article to main space when i thought it was ready for it. The advice i got was that if he had written in some major psychology journals, or if he'd held a chair at a widely recognized institution, he might be notable; and what did i do? I added refs to major psychology journals and wrote about his IFIP chair. I did exactly as i was advised.Magnus bjerg (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Magnus bjerg, you're right that there isn't any rule; however, the draft space was created to allow inexperienced editors to learn what makes an acceptable Wikipedia article without risk of immediate deletion of their work. The draft is now gone, so it's hard to be sure: however, it's my recollection that you had received a mass of advice from many different editors, and had chosen to ignore or dispute much of it; you did not, I'm afraid, do what you were advised or indeed anything like it.

On academic notability: we pay no attention to how many articles an academic has published, though we do look at which journals those articles were published by; but what makes the difference is the degree of importance attached to those articles by other academics, and that is measured by the number of citations. While some very obscure journals from the early part of the last century may not have been digitised, the vast bulk of recent academic literature is electronically searchable; that makes it easy for Google to establish how many times a certain article by Kresten Berg has been included in the reference section of someone else's published work. In several cases that number appears to be zero: he wrote the article and published it, but the academic community did not find it worthy of interest. That doesn't mean that he was not an interesting or inventive person; but it does mean that he should not have an article in Wikipedia. I'm not sure that anyone has explained to you what we mean by conflict of interest, so I've left a note on your talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines, WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF. References are to material written by him not about him. His work does not seem to be considered significant by his peers, GScholar reports citation rates in the single and low double digits for his works in a field where much higher citation rates are the norm for significant works. There may be press on him in Danish but a quick search on google.dk did not turn up anything I could identify using machine translation. Jbh ^Talk 22:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:PROF.It's not a question merely of the article being incomplete, but that the data indicated by the article about him does not show academic notability , and until his work becomes much better known, there is no way in which addition editing o the article would improve it. We do not delete articles because they are incomplete. A one-sentence referenced stub on an academic showing they meet the specific notability requirement will and should be kept; if they do, it will be possible to expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 30 November 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. WP:CSD#G5 - deleted many times before as Alhaji Bello Magaji and variations, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbakahr. JohnCD (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullahi Muhammad[edit]

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

Appears to be a local non-elected official at a village level not rising to the level of Politician Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the basic notability criteria for individual persons is not found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:37, 28 November 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 05:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chatbotfriends[edit]

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

Only google hits were this article, the website, a reddit thread, etc. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 22:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My edits) @ 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Like the nominator, I can't find anything useful at all. I checked PC World, PC Magazine, Wired, CNET, etc. Usually, websites like this at least get a trivial mention in articles that they write about the topic. As far as I can tell, no journalists have ever recommended it or even commented on it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps even speedily A7) non-notable website, fails WP:WEB.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting Wikipedia rules, by far. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above reasons. GabeIglesia (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NJP - no evidence of notability fails gng. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 4 December 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. Sandstein 21:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rafael Rose[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources provided are unreliable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are self-published (IMDb, YouTube, Facebook); passing mention in others. --Drm310 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources aren't self published - the Facebook was from the official Kent Vegan Festival page posting a photo with the subject. The Youtube was not Rose's Youtube page but in fact the official Youtube page of The People's Assembly, so not self published. The IMDB was generated by Withoutabox because of Festival selection. There are plenty of credible sources that are way more than 'passing mention' - the reviews from top film websites, the crediting of everything to the subject on the People's Assembly website, the crediting of the entire interview to Rose on the New Statesman article, the countless listings in Film Festivals confirming the films' selections (is this what you mean by 'passing mention'? Because that's not an accurate description, they are listings in official selections for Film Festivals. There are clearly a lot of strong sources, and your criticism of the sources just doesn't hold up. ~~Bompybabomperson~~

@Bompybabomperson: I don't think you read Wikipedia's definition of self-published sources. It is a source that consists mainly or wholly of user-generated content, without any editorial control.

Withoutabox is just an Amazon/IMDb-owned service, so its submissions were almost certainly by Mr. Rose himself or someone acting on his behalf. Wikipedia:Citing IMDb lists the specific circumstances where citing the IMDb is acceptable.

At WP:NOYT, you will see the circumstances in which Facebook or YouTube can be considered valid primary sources. As well, I am not convinced that simply having ones works included in a festival or being credited as an interviewer makes one notable enough to satisfy the basic criteria of notability for people. Mentioning associations with other notable people isn't going to help either, since notability is not inherited.

If you can provide multiple reviews of his films from reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the festival organizations (e.g. major news organizations, established film publications or websites, etc.), then this article might have a better chance of survival. --Drm310 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IMDb is not a reliable source, as it's user-generated. YouTube can be a reliable source in certain circumstances, but, to demonstrate notability, it would have to be the official channel of a recognized news source, such as CNN or the BBC. People's Assembly Against Austerity (this is the organization, I think?) looks like an activist group, not a professional news organization. We need coverage in reliable sources of this person. Film festival listings are not good enough. An interview performed by the person is not evidence of notability. An interview of the person could be. When this person makes headlines in newspapers and magazines, then we'll have enough sources to write an article. Right now, it looks too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this provides an independent featuring of him and his content - http://cinemajam.com/mag/features/alex-raphael-rose - I also believe there's an interview and TV appearance coming out after his next screening at the book club-http://www.wearetbc.com/whats-on/alex-rafael-rose-presents-boddah49-with-a-live-qa/ - so once that's available it can be put here for citation. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think your criticisms qualify the page for deletion, I think the page just requires a notice saying there are problems with the page and asking people to contribute citations if they know of any. I just found the citations I used from a quick google of his name, but I'm just if other people do some digging there will be more citations available online that fit your criteria a bit better. Surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bompybabomperson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bompybabomperson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

The Cinema Jam reference might be acceptable. It looks like a trade magazine for film professionals and appears to be independent.

However, there's a problem with your other statements. "There's an interview and TV appearance coming out after his next screening" tacitly admits that nothing exists now. Wikipedia articles do not speculate on the potential future notability of a subject (WP:CRYSTAL). They are about subjects that are already notable at the time of the article's creation.

"If other people do some digging" contradicts Wikipedia's verifiability policy that states that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It's not fair for someone to write an article and then expect others to provide the necessary citations to verify its content. You must do the heavy lifting yourself if you want your contributions to withstand scrutiny.

Maybe this individual will become notable, or maybe they won't. At this time, it's too soon to know. --Drm310 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simply meant that if the article lacks credible sources, I am aware that there will be another one in a couple weeks to bolster it at /that/ time, not now. I understand what you are saying, and I did supply as many citations and 'heavy lifting' as I could, I just don't think the criticism qualifies it for deletion. I think the subject is clearly notable enough, just the article needs some credible sources to be found - not to be deleted. Bompybabomperson (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Exactly and if there's nothing to even suggest he's generally notable (GNG), there's not much for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show the notability of this individual as per wiki criteria. Other than a single trivial mention on News and a separate equally trivial mention on Highbeam, absolutely zilch on the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 5 December 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 05:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Yee Ko[edit]

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

Expired PROD that was deleted in 2013. Lately the article was restored, but has remained totally unsourced. Recent PROD was removed. I have added three ((cite book))s, but we are not anything near meeting WP:BASIC or sourcing all the intricate family detail this bio contains. Maybe somebody else can find sources? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written like a personal reminiscence rather than being in any way encyclopedic. The sources we have seem to mention him only briefly; they verify that he was indeed a Malaysian schoolmaster but are not enough to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 16:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Epstein and nom. And it'd be easier to recreate w/ RS than to edit what is there. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing in searches to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 4 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Burgh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree as noted above, plus author has WP:COI issues and is creating articles simply to promote a project. JamesG5 (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and noting comments by JamesG5 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He had a reoccurring role on the webseries Youthful Daze, however I don't see where that has an article, meaning that we cannot redirect to the series page. (I'm not entirely sure that it'd warrant a page, given that the coverage is fairly sporadic. This was one of the best ones I found.) His other roles as an actor are either minor (his role in LA Slasher appears to be as an extra) or are in non-notable short films, so he cannot get notability from those either. Now as far as his directorial career goes, his short film hasn't gained any coverage despite it screening at the 2015 Chinese American Film Festival. It may get coverage once it gets an official release, but that's never really guaranteed and short films usually don't gain the coverage necessary for an article. I also note that de Burgh's article is a copyright violation from the performer's IMDb profile. I'd recommend that this go through a full AfD rather than just get speedied, however, as this would prevent recreation before de Burgh passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. Yes, he has been in 78 episodes of Youthful Daze, but that is his only "significant" role to date. The article might be resurrected in the future when WP:ENT as an actor or WP:CREATIVE as a filmmaker is ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not yet notable, not even generally, but feel welcome to draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 08:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG as can be seen in searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 4 December 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 - To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure considering the other related groups seemed like clear deletes but it certainly seemed well-known so keep it is (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Board of California[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable subunit of the California Department of Consumer Affairs as the best links I found were only passing mentions and otherwise unusable for notability here, here, here and here. At best, this should be merged however much needed to the CDCA but if this is notable and improvable as a separate article, I'm willing to close as such. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found many sources on Google News and Google Scholar that mention either "California Medical Board" or "Medical Board of California". Many of these seem to cover the board in depth if not as an integral aspect of a story or analysis. Scholarly: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. News: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There are many more sources. Obviously, the WP article needs to be edited to reflect these sources. Delta13C (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that any serious encyclopedia of broad scope really ought to have articles on this sort of topic. If the notability guidelines say it should be deleted they are, in this case, offering very poor guidance. Of course it is a great pity the article is not up to standard – in particular it lacks satisfactory references. However Delta has shown that there are suitable references available. Thincat (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Delta13C and Thincat. Int21h (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Delta13C. This agency has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Although the article may need improvement, it certainly should not be a candidate for deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources and source searches demonstrate the the topic meets WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @SwisterTwister: to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs help but the medical licensing board for the largest state with the largest physician pool is without a doubt notable right on the surface. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Nominator withdraw his support. Mrfrobinson (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) (Non-Admin Closure[reply]

Brian Edwards (publicist)[edit]

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

Comment not notable according to sources. Always :) 19:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep - We've already been through this several times, the last time the delete debate resulted in the article being kept because of the Satellite Lifetime achievement award. This nomination was clearly retaliatory for the user's several recently deleted articles. Usterday (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 254,330 is the Alexa rank of Satellite Today - Very poor in case if its a notable Publication ? And an award from such a publication will make a person notable to have a wiki page ? Always :) 19:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

Um, the Satellite Awards is not a publication, it is a nationally broadcast awards ceremony in the US. It qualifies the pages subject under WP:ANYBIO as per the receipt of a notable, national award as an entertainer. Did you even read the page? Usterday (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Satellite awards is being given by Satelite Today Publications and to have worth for the award , The Publication Satelite Today need to be notable if you are relying on just one award for making this person notable ? Always :) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, no, the Satellite Awards are given by the International Press Academy. The page subject is also a Miss America Pageant host and the subject of numerous press profiles. Hope this clears up your misunderstanding... Usterday (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is this link all about ? http://www.satellitetoday.com/2015-excellence-awards/ ? Always :) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

Yeah I have got the link http://www.pressacademy.com/news/enter-talking-exit-charmed-thats-brian-edwards/ Sorry for the confusion .

Always :) 19:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

KEEP : The AfD tag was placed due to a confusion Always :) 19:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

Comment - Move to close deletion debate due to nominator's reversal of vote. Usterday (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 28 November 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. Article was a copyright violation. But Largo Plazo is correct – the mere fact that an article is not in English is not a valid deletion reason. Super Mario Man ( Talk ) 22:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Calderon[edit]

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

Not in English Dat GuyWiki (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not being in English is not grounds for deletion until the process at WP:Pages needing translation into English has been followed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:00, 27 November 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 Piebald. Never usually close on one !vote but redirect does make sense here, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piebald / Sevenpercentsolution Split[edit]

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

Unremarkable musical recording, however doesn't exactly meet criteria for WP:CSD. Piebald does have a WP article; however Sevenpercentsolution does not. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 19:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band as a non-notable recording by an band with an article, per WP:NALBUMS. We do have a "Seven Percent Solution" band article, but that seems to be a different band than "Sevenpercentsolution". DMacks (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Kirkman[edit]

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

Reads as a resume; kind of edgy on the notability side. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 19:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but Sears is a major retailer and her appointment has received extensive coverage in reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had considered keeping before but I thought there may simply not be enough but I suppose this is still acceptable.Redirect to Sears Canada as my searches instantly found links for this and not even much of it actually, the other company positions are something but perhaps not enough for a solid separately notable article. I'll notify a user who asks to be notified of business subjects, DGG What say you? I know articles for people who are execs of notable companies and several others are often kept but this one still seems questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The level of company where I think the CEO notable is about $1 billion revenue. Searc Canada has several times that. She's held at least one other major position also. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the glorified press releases, there was a bit of analysis from reliable sources, such as [13] from The Globe and Mail. Before the flurry of recent news reports, she received attention as a business leader: [14] and [15] from The Globe and Mail, [16] from the Financial Post, and [17] from CBC.ca. She's also published some opinion columns or blogs or some such at Huffington Post Canada. It's not as much coverage as I'd like, but she's pretty high profile now. I think that pushes it over the edge into notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:54, 30 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Garrett[edit]

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

Reliable sources do not cover this person except in trivial way. A couple of sources that focus on him are unreliable. Unresolved reliable sources tag since 2010. Minor case. Bio fails the WP:ONEEVENT rules.Could be part of another article, but certainly not on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this person was convicted of rape and murder, and was executed. That is notable. 67.0.98.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME appears to say otherwise. See "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:..." – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:CRIME. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:CRIME, per Jonesey95. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIME, insufficient standalone notability per WP:CRIME. Optionally redirect to List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States since 1976 as a legitimate search term. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:CRIME, –Davey2010^Talk 00:14, 4 December 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) clpo13_(talk) 08:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Beauchamp (pseudonym)[edit]

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

Not notable. Created by account that faked multiple sign ins. entire existence of article OR. Real sources, but trivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a famous case study, discussed in depth.[18],[19],[20] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~(and maybe Move)~~ Seems to be enough coverage — [21][22][23][24]. ~~Most of the results appear under Clara Norton Fowler though, so maybe a move is in order?~~ Discant X 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like most sources identify her as Beauchamp repeatedly, with a mention of her real name. For example in the first link I posted above, the chapter was called "The Real Miss Beauchamp." —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yup. You're absolutely correct. I suppose I had it in my head that I found more sources by searching for Clara Norton Fowler rather than Beauchamp so that was the more common usage. Reading them over again though, it does seem that "Beauchamp" is the subject, and "Fowler" is mentioned as extra info. I'll just go ahead and scratch out my move suggestion now. Discant X 12:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used it as the search term too :-) since it was more specific, I figured it would be faster, but noticed the primary name is Beauchamp. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:06, 4 December 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 the guideline WP:MUSICBIO, meets those guidelines. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Feldt (musician)[edit]

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

Promotional article for artist that is not notable according to sources. Usterday (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Dude, New York Times is one among the link provided another is 'the Guardian' .There are tons of other news links - But here i didnt put it cause the contents r less and the article is slowing growing. And how on earth can you tell Sam Feldt is a non notable Artist ? Please go through the google news section or even the google or any search engine - you can find tons of newslinks about him ! Always :) 17:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys (talk • contribs)

All passing mentions, clearly not enough here to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Usterday (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.lessthan3.com/news/hedegaard-happy-home-sam-feldt-remix , http://wegotthiscovered.com/music/sam-feldt-hims-drive-home-drove-sleep/ , http://www.islandrecords.com/artists/sam-feldt/ are 3 among the total 5 links inputted ? and you are telling these are passing mentions ??? Are you serious ??? Let me get help from more admins then ! Always :) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Those links do not comply with WP:RS. Usterday (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering 2 points from WP:MUSICBIO 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart or

Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. ? Yes. He has a number of singles and albums that are top in national music cheart and He has been certified gold  http://backstage.coach.com/en/artists/sam-feldt , http://www.noise11.com/news/aria-singles-justin-bieber-what-do-you-mean-spends-second-week-at-no-1-20150912. There are a number of links to support it ! Always :)  18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Gold record does not belong to Feldt, it is a record by Robyn S that was released in the early 1990s. The artist's own bio here states he didn't even start his career until 2013... Feldt just remixed a famous song twenty years after it came out... Usterday (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fan not withstanding, let's wait to have an article until reliable sources mention him, He's not there yet. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes MUSICBIO. He has a single on the UK chart which is tracked by Bilboard [25]. Personally I think the notability criteria are too low and GNG should be controling for recent bands etc but we have what we have and he passes. Jbh ^Talk 22:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author contacted me to let me know that he/she has fixed the orphan and dead-end problems, so I removed these tags from the article. The number of references has also been increased to 18.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:MUSICBIO on at least two criteria: "had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country". That record may be a re-working of an old work (albeit with new vocals and instrumentals), but his name is still the one shown on the credits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is growing exponentially since being nominated with more added reliable sources. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:26, 28 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of plagiarism incidents[edit]

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

Per what TenOfAllTrades wrote here. Brustopher (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those curious what TenOfAllTrades wrote:

To be honest, this article looks like it will be a perpetual nuisance and probably shouldn't exist. Aside from the potential for BLP issues, its scope is just too broad. A search for 'plagiarism' on any news website will return hundreds or thousands of hits, many of which involve individuals who clear the 'notability' threshold on Wikipedia. (And you'll see a steady stream of plagiarism-related retractions and corrections when you watch Retraction Watch.) A 'complete' listing would run to at least hundreds and probably thousands of entries. All you're going to get is what we're seeing now—a random hodgepodge of mostly-politically-motivated additions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Pburka (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most entries have reliable sources. If not they should be added or removed. Article topic is certainly news-worthy. Clean up doesn't mean delete. No article should be complete, it should only have notable entries, like all of Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AfD isn't cleanup. The issue is that there is no possible way to clean this article up. Could you imagine an article on this topic ever being brought to Featured List status? Nothing of value would be lost by deleting this article and we would be rid of the "random hodgepodge of mostly-politically-motivated additions" TenOfAllTrades refers to. Brustopher (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it can't be cleaned up you just haven't tried. DreamGuy (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of clear arguments of TenOfAllTrades. I have on too many times attempted to clean up inadequately sourced and probably defamatory assertions but been reverted by few-edit WP:Spas who appear to have axes to grind. I leave their contributions alone as I am unwilling to engage in continual edit wars. The list is always going to be a battleground for WP:BLP policy and is best removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
'Keep'Comment. Rename to List of plagiarism-related subjects - like in Draft:Index of plagiarism-related articles (see below). This is just one of many lists on controversial subjects. Yes, it is notable, and it can be sourced. Obviously, the list can be significantly expanded, however keeping at least the most significant cases still makes sense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my quoted comment above. This article will always be an attractive target for POV pushers and nuisance edits—but even if it weren't, it's intrinsically unable to be a good Wikipedia article.
Inclusion criteria will be forever problematic. If it were 'complete' in any meaningful sense, it would be a useless collection of hundreds or thousands of short blurbs, each utterly unrelated to one another except for the association with plagiarism (or an accusation thereof), with no 'natural' unifying scheme for organization and subcategorization. If we instead try to limit the growth of the article to only the most 'important' incidents involving plagiarism, we'll be perpetually arguing over which scientists and politicians should be tarred. In either case, there is a legitimate and serious ethical (not to mention WP:BLP, and even WP:WEIGHT) concern that we'll be calling out particular individuals and associating them with "plagiarism incidents" in search results. The true statements above to the effect that individual entries in the article can be sourced rather miss the point of the problem.
If one wants to read about plagiarism incidents, it makes far more sense to read about them in context, perhaps via the extant Category:Plagiarism controversies or some variation. It's certainly appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article on plagiarism, and to discuss incidents related to plagiarism within its pages; I am far from persuaded that Wikipedia is well-served by reduplicating that material as a collection of anecdotes in this particular article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could easily fix this list by including all pages from the Category:Plagiarism controversies. Surprisingly, there are relatively few of them. Since we have the category, we can just as easily have the list. In a lot of cases, there is no any serious dispute if something was in fact a "plagiarism incident", hence this not anything intrinsically problematic. The plagiarism by itself is a very important phenomenon; having such list simply helps to explore the subject (few people know about the categories). If needed, it can be renamed to the List of plagiarism controversies (currently a redirect). My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Relatively few"? Are we looking at the same category? It has 245 pages in it, and is probably woefully incomplete. I wouldn't call a random litany of hundreds of mutually unrelated incidents (from academics copying each others' papers, to reporters cribbing from Wikipedia, to politicians stealing stump speeches, to businesspeople ripping off commencement addresses, to songwriters lifting lyrics) condensed into one-paragraph anecdote form a useful or easy fix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... After quickly looking at these pages, it appears that 90% of them are not about plagiarism incidents, but about people and subjects that have been possibly involved in such incidents. Whatever, I have no strong opinion on this. My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or restrict. As a principle a summary page like this should only summarise information that is included in the relevant subject article on this wiki. This would ensure that any RS or BLP issues have been addressed in the context of the subject page.Martinlc (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was all set to oppose this but I find the administrator's rationale to be the most persuasive. Despite a fairly strongly worded intro this list isn't really as advertised, and it does seem to mix truly notable plagiarism events with "gotcha" anecdotes that are just trivial. I mean, the Barack Obama thing, for one, is so silly. And this list will always be like that, I think. I can't see it ever not being a POV magnet. Ideal solution might be to prune this back to something that lists major plagiarism incidents only, but I don't see anyone (including me) lining up to do that. I've no interest. Cut if back and it'll just grow again. The great thing about the category is that it should only group articles that meet our notability guidelines, so there's a built in safeguard that this odd list will never have. Good call by TenOfAllTrades, I think. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per TenOfAllTrades. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as list List articles are often problematic, especially where they can be used to coatrack the "issue of the day" or the like. That noted, the best solution here is deletion, as it is such a mélange as to be quite useless to readers. And this is far from the only problematic such "list" ever found on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TNT. Such a list could exist, based on the existance of articles such as Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy, but I see no way to get from the current list to that list. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Unfortunately plagiarism is far too common for such an article to be useful. Possibly we might merge the individual cases back to the bio articles and create a category, Category:Persons who have engaged in plagiarism. I wish I could think of something shorter than that. However I fear that we would run into POV problems, due to the possibility of unintentional plagiarism, or even the intentional (and appropriate) use of quotations giving rise to such an accusation. If I copy one author it is plagiarism; if I make a compilation based on a dozen or two, it may be academic research. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major WP:BLP minefield, which is far too much a battlefield for politically-motivated attack for its value to outweigh its headache-inducingness. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: far too broadly defined, especially for a list with such potential BLP worries.—indopug (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or completely rework into a list of notable events/incidents of plagiarism (no links to biographies) and no non-notable examples. I don't know how long or useful that list would be, though. As it is now, however, I have to agree with the problems of definition/scope and major WP:BLP issues detailed above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've created Draft:Index of plagiarism-related articles and would welcome both improvements and feedback before I move it to the mainspace (and would be open to hear objections to the same). Note that I specified that it includes incidents/examples of plagiarism, but not biographies of plagiarists or alleged plagiarists. As an index its purpose is primarily a navigational aid, so it's possible a section for "Plagiarists and alleged plagiarists" is possible, based on local consensus for each article/bio, but given all the concerns here it seemed better to omit those to create a baseline. It is a significant topic that it makes sense to have a list about. Maybe a list of incidents like the present article isn't appropriate, but an index should be. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not keen on lists of allegations. Only rock-solidly proved cases should get into Wikipedia under WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Rename and restrict: I would say a list of this is fine, but since plagiarism incidents have a broad coverage, why not rename to 'List of Notable Plagiarism incidents'? Also, after the rename, only notable plagiarism incidents are allowed to be included the list (where it contains at least two reliable sources) to reduce its coverage. Vincent60030 (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has, in effect, been tried, and it doesn't work because all the axe-grinders insist that their own case is most notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I guess I'll maintain my stand for now until there are more opinions. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is good suggestion. One should also realize that a lot of WP lists are highly incomplete (and may never be complete), but it does not mean that all such lists should be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 4 December 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. Wow, this was uber-confusing to figure out, between the socking, the copying of comments from other pages, and the eclectic formatting. But, it looks like the clear consensus (after ignoring all the socking) is to delete the current Debelo Brdo article, and then rename Debelo brdo to Debelo Brdo. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debelo Brdo[edit]

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

I'm placing this on behalf of User:Jovan741jov, who appears to be having difficulties working out how to request an article deletion. Going by the article talk page (and a previous speedy deletion attempt), they are claiming that there is no such village, only a mountain - and we do also have an article at Debelo brdo about the mountain. There is a source given to support a census population claim (but it's offline and in Serbian). I have no opinion on this myself, I'm just doing this to help a new user. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC): Debelo Brdo village does not exist on this world. This article must be quickly deleted from Wikipedia project. Debelo brdo mountain exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovan741jov (talk • contribs) [reply]
Jovan741jov says they cannot edit this page, so I'm copying this comment here from my talk page, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC): ~~You must requesting to other Administrators to village Debelo Brdo be deleted. Census is incorrect and census is just a copy from the village Leskovice census in Kolubara district.~~ Jovan741jov (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) (Leskovice has different census figures, so I don't know what they're talking about, but I'm just the messenger here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)) Debelo Brdo village cannot exist, because it is a mountain.[reply]

~~Debelo Brdo village is a incorrect article who must be deleted by Administrators.~~ Jovan741jov (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

~~I agree. Debelo Brdo is a plateau, part of mount Povlen. Leskovice are once settlement on Povlen mount. In Kolubara District does not exist settlement whose carry Debelo Brdo name~~. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardasilija (talk • contribs) 00:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the present article at Debelo Brdo and move the article at Debelo brdo to Debelo Brdo.

Debelo Brdo was a legitimate article about the mountain until 15 February of this year, when an IP editor replaced the contents of the article with a hoax about a fictitious village. I have restored the version of the article immediately before that vandalism (apart from keeping the AfD notice), and that would be the end of it, if it weren't for the fact that when the article Debelo Brdo was created in November 2013‎ it was a duplication of an existing article about the mountain, at Debelo brdo. There is no significant content in Debelo Brdo that is worth merging, so the best thing to do is to simply move Debelo brdo to its correct capitalisation at Debelo Brdo, which will result in deletion of the unnecessary duplicate article, and also removal of the hoax from the history.

For anyone who wishes to confirm that there is no village called "Debelo Brdo" in the municipality of Valjevo, Serbia, I have searched extensively, and checked numerous sources, and I will provide two examples of sources that make it clear beyond all doubt. This web page shows a satellite map of the area around Valjevo, with places labelled. You can zoom in to various different scales, right up to the point where you can see individual buildings. As you go to larger and larger scales, more and more places are labelled, until not only are towns, villages, and districts within towns labelled, but so are individual streets. At no point does a village called "Debelo Brdo" appear on the map. It is inconceivable that a genuine village in the area would be omitted. One other source which would also be expected to show the village and doesn't is this, which lists all places within a 16 km radius of Valjevo (162 places in all), but does not mention any place with either of the words "Debelo" or"Brdo" in its name. (To avoid risk of confusion, there are villages called "Debelo Brdo" in several parts of the Balkans, but none of them is in the municipality of Valjevo in Serbia, as stated in the article, nor even in or near Kolubara District, which includes the municipality of Valjevo.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: ~~I disagree with you. I would move the article Debelo Brdo at Debelo brdo or delete article Debelo Brdo. Debelo brdo article is totaly correct...~~ User:Gardasilija (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what he said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! Said Zabedee: Don't change,edit or redirect anything at Debelo brdo article. Don't copy a text from the Debelo brdo article to Debelo Brdo article. Just delete Debelo Brdo article because it is duplicate. User:Gardasilija (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Debelo Brdo is deleted, Debelo brdo needs to be moved (that is renamed) to the correct capitalization - nobody is suggesting copying anything anywhere. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:GEOLAND. I was able to locate this place here, here, and here. This is a name of a mountain ridge. It doesn't seem to fall into "populated, legally recognized places" (since there doesn't appear to be a population at this exact place), but it does appear to fall within "named natural features". If anything, you could redirect both articles to Povlen (it looks like this place is part of that mountain). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have very carefully read and re-read WP:GEOLAND, and I can't see anything at all there which in any way suggests we should have a redirect, rather than keeping (and renaming) the existing article Debelo brdo about the mountain. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator. Gardasilija (talk · contribs · count) and Jovan741jov (talk · contribs · count) are Confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck their comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move as per JamesBWatson. I'm not entirely surprised to hear about the socking, but !James appears to be right about the content and the required action. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rename the article on the mountain as per JamesBWatson and Boing! said Zebedee. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikeheight.com[edit]

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

The company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, which isn't exactly surprising given that it was only founded last year. While some of the references in the article do mention the company, the articles appear to be more about the concept of the virtual showroom rather than about the company itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current News Source, Deccan Herald Published a story about bikeheight.com recently : , < http://www.deccanherald.com/content/510401/upload-your-picture-take-virtual.html> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.116.98 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No current news sources, trivial coverage. Fails most basic rules. DreamGuy (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable company, Seems somewhat promo too, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company, page seems only promotional in nature. Nothing specifically significant about the company Jab843 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even opened the site ever. You are telling that there is nothing special. For your kind information Bike height is the world first site which give facility to upload your photo and you can generate a scene of you riding bike, it shows interactive lights, meter and engine. The technology is patent protected. You should be sincere to make comment on some reputed company.
Current News Source, Deccan Herald Published a story about bikeheight.com recently : , < http://www.deccanherald.com/content/510401/upload-your-picture-take-virtual.html>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkik13 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Youth Radio[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, Found a few one liner mentions in a few books but other than that there's nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable internet radio station, no OFCOM license, no sign of any mentions in media JMWt (talk) 15:11, 27 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willem McCormick[edit]

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

Unable to find and significant coverage of the subject of this unsourced BLP including the Guitar World piece. Do not believe it meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not yet notable and nothing to suggest a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real sources. Must meet MUSIC rules for notability, and doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 27 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Droideka[edit]

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

I'd speedy this as non-notable but odds are that the tag would be removed because there is a Rizla Blue-thin assertion of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rizla Blue-thin assertion of notability.--2.121.186.75 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References seem legit. That said, I think it's highly questionable to make this artist the default page for the term. I note that the move was made recently and that should probably be reverted. Chunky Rice (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me can this debate please continue the person who requested this article for deletion hasn't added any input. In my eyes I would Keep this article.-Robert Hill-Forntongoover

The man is entirely non-notable. The sole claim to notability is a single hit recording, Get Hyper, two years ago. There is an article on that, which seems to be enough.TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the music notabiliy a person who has a single on a chart is notable-2.122.250.20 (talk)

Keep. Passes wp:music, has charted. Szzuk (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he passes the notability guideline for musicians, as a charting artist (though without doubt the article could do with some expansion work). That said, I'm all in favour of the phrase "Rizla Blue-thin assertion of notability" becoming a thing, as per TheLongTone. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:56, 3 December 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. Consensus is leaning to keep, after research provided by Cunard. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parse (company)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Sbwoodside (creator) with the following rationale "Establishing notability through citations." Through new cites have been added, I do not believe they address the issue. The citations focus on business-as-usual, routine coverage events: the company got initial funding (TechCrunch reports funding for all technology startups), and then got bought by Facebook, which was also acknowledged in trade journals covering tech companies (primarily TechCrunch again). Wired mentioned the company in passing. Nothing here suggests that the sources and coverage pas the NCOMPANY threshold. In particular, see the "Depth of coverage", "Organizations notable only for one event" and "Audience" sections (the former discuss why routine coverage is not sufficient, and the latter notes that coverage should be in non-niche, non-local, non-trade journal-level sources), also keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sbwoodside (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not associated with Parse. Parse is an important company for application developers as it is the best-known Backend as a Service company (BaaS). I was surprised that Parse was not covered by Wikipedia so I added it. I do not support this idea that companies cannot be covered unless they are featured in the New York Times. Companies are an important part of the world and need to be covered in Wikipedia. The article as it stands is by no means an advertisement, it simply states facts about Parse in an encyclopedic manner. There has more certainly been much deeper content written about Parse. This article is a stub and can therefore be expanded by other editors. I suspect that there is some form of anti-corporate or anti-stub philosophy behind the move to delete this article and, as a long-time wiki editor, I think that this is a part of what I would call the overall "deletionist" movement that is making it difficult for people to add new articles and therefore increase wikipedia's coverage of important areas like technology startup businesses. Sbwoodside (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is not a valid argument. However, WP:NCOMPANY is an established guideline; if you don't accept it, propose it for deletion or discuss how to change its criteria on talk. I'll also ping User:DGG, because I think he may want to say a word or two regarding your stated goal of "increas[ing] wikipedia's coverage of important areas like technology startup businesses". Personally, I think we are spammed by unimportant, unencyclopedic technology startup business spam entries that have no place in an encyclopedia. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't been active for a while on the wiki and it seems as though the deletionist movement has become quite prominent. However, although I am an inclusionist, I will simply respond to the concerns listed above by User:Piotrus point by point. Cited is WP:NCOMPANY. A close reading of that guidelines gives the following subsections, which I will deal with individually. WP:ORGIN: There are currently 413 articles included in the CrunchBase database of articles about Parse. Notability only requires that these are published, not that they are cited in the article. WP:ORGSIG: Parse's impact on fields of human endeavour has been documented already in the originally cited articles. These might seem unimportant (to push back with the inverse of WP:ITSIMPORTANT) to a non-software developer, but that does not discount their impact on technology. It's documented and published. WP:INHERITORG: Parse's importance does not result from its purchase by Facebook. The inverse is the case. WP:CORPDEPTH: The sources cited are important within the technology industry, this can be easily verified by checking their audience figures. WP:AUD: The sources cited are national or international. WP:ORGIND: the sources cited are respected independent business and technology journalism. WP:ILLCON: does not apply.

To deal with the suggestion that I challenge the established guideline: I'm not sure why one has suggested that, it seems like a rather extreme action to take and I have no plans in that regard. The guidelines seems appropriate to me.

Regarding spam, the article as first written was not written like an advertisement, it simply stated facts that were backed up by the citations which came from independent secondary sources.

Regarding the Yellow Pages, the article as originally written contained no contact information.

More generally I am concerned about an assumption towards stub and start articles, that if there are only a handful of citations, that more citations do not exist. This appears to be a "guilty until proven innocent" rule, which is highly problematic for many reasons that have been discussed throughout history.Sbwoodside (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are routine notices or press releases, neither of which show notability . We have a long standing practice of deleting articles on beginning entertainers and the like using the shorthand TOOSOON, or Not Yet Notable. This applies also to almost all start up companies, and its time we became more rigorous at this--and we are gradually getting there. The way we apply guidelines is the actual guideline not the printed text, and the way we apply the COMPANY guidelinei s becoming stricter. Here, as the company has been purchased by a much larger company, it will never even have a chance to become notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was going to suggest User:Sbwoodside starts List of Facebook acquisitions based on List of Google acquisitions and copies the content there, but I see List of mergers and acquisitions by Facebook exists (just a redirect was missing). I think that list needs a field for "reason for acquisition" or "notes", where all such content would be safely merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:DGG, I am not aware of any such long standing practice applying to startup companies, it would be helpful when citing such a practice to provide a link to the relevant WP page. If there is an 'actual guideline' then surely in a community which can communicate only through text, the 'actual guideline' must be written down. The notability of a company is independent of its ownership. Parse continues to operate as an independent entity and its business is more or less completely separate from that of its parent. Parse's notability is not particularly derived from Facebook, was established prior to the acquisition and continues to follow along Parse's business which is in a different space from Facebook. Of course I would assume that one who is proposing deletion of an article will perform basic due diligence research on the companies in question, so hopefully it is merely stating what would be obvious information to anyone contemplating this AfD. Sbwoodside (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the practice like most of our practices is not codified, but the trend of decisions at arb com; the written policies sometimes have very little relation to what actually happens. We make our own policies, and we can if we choose make them case-by-case, paying greater attention to whatever guidelines seem to fit and interpreting as we think the situation requires; in the matter of deletions at afd, looking back for the 8 years I've been here, we have always been inconsistent, and gone case by case on the view taken at that time on their individual merits. The GNG leads inevitably to this approach, for the interpretations of the key words "substantial" and "independent" are not capable of being stated precisely. Over the last year or two, the trends has certainly been to interpret them much more strictly to new companies, especially new internet companies.

I would much rather have true quantitative determinable standards relating to the company size and other measurable factors, but the community has not yet supported this approach. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to be a new company? How old would it be?

With respect to "The references are routine notices or press releases" -- perhaps you would be willing to review the updated references and my response to User:Piotrus and update your opinion about whether this article should be deleted. Sbwoodside (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#cite_note-Multiple-2: numerous news articles about the same event (company's acquisition by facebook) do not satisfy the requirement for coverage in multiple sources, as said coverage should concern more than one event. Also, getting funded and getting acquired is routine business word dealings, not enough to make the company notable. Again, I see nothing that makes this company merit a stand alone article, where an entry on the Facebook list of acquisitions is sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says:

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.

I agree that trivial mentions of a company's getting funded and getting acquired is routine business. But if sources provide "deep coverage" (which is the case here), then the company is considered notable under the "deep coverage" standard.

And in this case, there are numerous sources about the company's history and products that are unrelated to the funding and acquisition.

DGG writes: "the practice like most of our practices is not codified, but the trend of decisions at arb com; the written policies sometimes have very little relation to what actually happens". DGG believes that most reliable sources that discuss companies are routine or press releases so unusable to establish notability. This is not codified in the guidelines because there is little consensus for them. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DigitalOcean (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perion Network.

Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-26). "If you've dreamed of adding Instagram-like photo-sharing to your app, Parse has you covered". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
2. Lynley, Matt (2012-07-26). "You Can Use This Startup To Build A Copy Of Billion-Dollar App Instagram In A Half Hour". Business Insider. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
3. Grant, Rebecca (2012-09-11). "Hey, mobile app developers, get on the Parse cloud". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
4. Rusli, Evelyn M. (2013-04-25). "Facebook to Buy Mobile Startup Parse in Cash-and-Stock Deal". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
5. Moscaritolo, Angela (2013-04-26). "Facebook Buys Mobile App Development Platform Parse". PC Magazine. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
6. Constine, Josh (2013-09-05). "Parse Fleshes Out Mobile Backend Service With Analytics, Background Jobs, And Web Parity". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
7. Lardinois, Frederic (2014-12-09). "Parse Launches Crash Reporting, Brings Local Datastore To iOS". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
8. Higginbotham, Stacey (2015-03-25). "Why Facebook's Parse news is a big deal for the Internet of things". Fortune. Retrieved 2015-11-14.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Parse to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are listed chronologically.
The VentureBeat articles by Rebecca Grant on 26 July 2012 and 11 September 2012 are not about the funding and predate the acquisition.
The 26 September 2012 Business Insider article by Matt Lynley is not about the funding and predates the acquisition.
The Wall Street Journal and PC Magazine articles in April 2013 discuss the Facebook acquisition.
Josh Constine's 5 September 2013 TechCrunch article and Frederic Lardinois's 9 September 2014 TechCrunch article discusses Parse's products.
Fortune magazine published a 25 March 2015 article discussing that Parse "is a big deal for the Internet of things".
A company that has received sustained coverage from 2012–2015 clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if at all now (or perhaps delete for now and draft and userfy and allow a restart later) because of Cunard's listed sources or else I would've said delete as not yet notable. Piotrus and DGG, are you aware of the albeit few but notable publishers sources? SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If User:DGG concurs, I am prepared to withdraw this nom. The Fortune ref is good, and TechCrunch for example still provides in-depth coverage of this after the acquisition. User:Cunard's sources here seem pretty good in rescuing the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus (talk · contribs), for reviewing the sources. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Grant article in Venture Beat is marked "Promoted Stories" Am I right that this indicates its a press release? DGG - 6:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The Grant article in VentureBeat is not a press release.
"Promoted Stories" refers to the six links below the article that are "Recommended by Outbrain". None of those six stories are published by VentureBeat. There is a "Promoted Stories" section at the bottom of every VentureBeat article.
The Huffington Post (and many other websites) has something similar. Click on any article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/business/ and scroll to the bottom of the article, which says "You May Like Around the Web" (by Gravity) and lists nine promoted links. VentureBeat has a similar concept with its promoted stories section.
Cunard (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in other words, it' apparently an article which has been the subject of PR efforts. If the Huntington Post does that also, it confirms by doubts that it too is not reliable for notability of companies. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. "Promoted Stories" refers to Online advertising#Display ads at the bottom of the non-PR article. It does not refer to articles published by VentureBeat and The Huffington Post. The New York Times has plenty of online advertising too on its webpages. That advertising does not make The New York Times's articles unreliable. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Promoted Stories" is a widget on the page VentureBeat which has nothing to do with the article. It's like a sidebar, except at the bottom. --Sbwoodside (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some sources are bad. So remove them. Other sources are much better and disprove argument that businesses should be removed. Businesses tend to be more notable than people on here. Handily meets GNG. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 27 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Tayler (book cover artist)[edit]

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

References here consist of an unpublished thesis and a series of routine mentions in registers which only verify that the subject existed, not that he was the subject of discussion in any depth by reliable independent sources. Two of the references aren't even verifiable ("Pilgrim school magazine"? No publisher, no author, not even a date? How can this source be traced?). Only one reference, #6, shows evidence of interest by an independent source, and it is in a publication with a very limited audience (comic book collectors). Article would require at least two references that discuss him non-trivially and that come from widely-circulated, verifiable sources. Otherwise, this reads like an obituary (WP:ROUTINE). His work does not appear to have won significant critical attention, has never been exhibited as part of a permanent museum collection, has never been the subject of a feature-length film or documentary, etc., so fails WP:ARTIST. KDS4444^Talk 04:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is pretty difficult to establish for book cover artists because quite frankly, most books will usually have multiple covers throughout their publication history. Just looking at one book, Guilty Pleasures by Laurell K Hamilton, shows that it's had at least 6 different covers since it was first published in the 90s. I agree that the existing sources aren't enough because we can't really verify that they actually talked about Tayler specifically. Also problematic is that a lot of the sources are WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unusable for showing notability, like the public and university records. The only ones that might be usable are the ones by Pilgrim School magazine, Ibid, and Paperback, Pulp and Comic Collector. Even then I'm not sure that these are really usable sources without some sort of verification. Did they actually mention Tayler or did they mention a copy of a book that he happened to have illustrated? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't believe anyone interested in art or artist come to Wikipedia for info. From what I've seen, most great contemporary artist would fail RS so what's left except the really big, named dead artists and even some of those have laughingly small bios. C'est la vie! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MurderByDeadcopy, pre-1950 art is very well covered and I think lots of people turn to Wikipedia for art coverage. As for contemporary art, List of contemporary artists is quite a list, all sourced. It's easier to source living artists than dead artists (other than the big names), since it's easier to find online sources than old books. freshacconci talk to me 15:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That list only proves my point. There is only one artist listed who was born in the 1980's. Half those artists are dead and most of those artist who are listed, are there because they got listed before 2010. Where are the new artist that you've stated are easier to source? Does Wikipedia even list any book artists? Where's Margo Wolowiec, Adam Winner, Brent Wadden, or Virginia Cartwright? I've tried writing about an artist here only because I recognized the name and got accused of multiple issues of garbage like some insidious version of Wikipedia-Kafkatrapping. Artists, (even though artists have the reputation of being poor and starving), get accused on Wikipedia of being in it only for the money (and laughed at since apparently all one needs to know about art is that blue and yellow make green), meanwhile, Wikipedia has zero issues with listing law firms, media marketers, hedge fund managers, stockbrokers, and entrepreneur because obviously those careers are the epitome of altruism. I'd love to see one modern day artist get their bio in 2015 on Wikipedia, but I'm personally not about to waste my time attempting such a futile endeavor since I'd have to spend more time defending the article than writing it! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my concerns above. I tried searching, but I really couldn't find anything that showed that he's notable enough for an article. It's possible that sources might exist that were never put on the Internet, but unless someone can show that these sources exist, are independent, reliable, and are in-depth enough to show notability, this will have to be a delete on my end. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the fact that WP:ARTIST states, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, it appears that this does not fail WP:ARTIST! The arts have many, many specialty magazines that quite frankly don't get on the internet so it creates a huge issue for those who are largely IT dependent. It is, however, amusing that Wikipedia list more video games from 1991 than they do contemporary artists! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there are art mags that cite this person, CITE THEM. The has to be on the Internet claim is false. Will wait to vote until they are presented. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very reluctant delete because he has fans. Book dealers list his covers, people have blogs, pinterest pages flicker albums about him. Search on: david + tayler + "book cover" . Lots of images, pages. What I can't find is a WP:RS. sigh. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Really like his work, but simply does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 4 December 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. If anyone would like to contest this deletion please post on my talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swing boarding[edit]

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

Missing third-party reliable sources to show this is a notable product or activity. Kelly ^hi! 03:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 04:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 27 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index of engineering articles[edit]

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

Violates Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria. The topic is very broad, so the list can never be exhaustive. — Vano 22:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Vano 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Vano 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not opposed to lists, if they provide some sort of organizational function, but this doesn't seem to do anything that a category doesn't already do better. Chunky Rice (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand – A valid ~~set index~~ article that qualifies per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Engineering. If the index becomes lengthy, it can be WP:SPLIT into new articles, such as those that exist at Category:Indexes of engineering topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is not an SIA per its definition ("a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name"). — Vano 14:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Modified my comment above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list about some subtopic is an article where it can be discussed. This is at best a category, and that's it. Serves no other purpose here. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we have a number of similar "index" lists (e.g. List of mechanical engineering topics). I think all of them should be deleted because they do not contain any information in addition to the corresponding categories, and having the categories is the most adequate way to classify the pages. If they had some additional information, they could be kept, but they do not.My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 5 December 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RapidXml[edit]

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

I'm not finding references that support the notability of this product Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this does seem to be a popular product, but the best I can find in terms of sources is a book that contains tutorial-style information on how to use this library and a short summary of what it is. I'm not sure if that would be considered in-depth coverage. Otherwise, it's all blogs and trivial mentions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there was certainly time for improvement since starting in 2007 but as the best my searches were only some News, Books and browsers links, there's nothing for a more obvious keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Assuming it will get big later is not justification to keep currently. It seems kind of small potatoes, and even the big names don't often get much coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 19:29, 27 November 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 head count favors delete, but not by the kind of margin I normally like to see to declare a clean consensus. However, the arguments for keep don't strike me as well founded in policy, and come from an IP editor with no other edits, a WP:SPA, and a user with a limited editing history, all focused on this topic. That tipped the scale for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Villarreal[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement (also note that referees have no inherent notability from their profession, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability - they need to meet GNG). This was deprodded by an anon after a little expansion, which does not change my view of this article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per consensus, the position of referee is not inherently notable, thus WP:GNG must be met, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Unkel for precedent that officiating the final of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup does not confer notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of CONCACAF's top referees. He has been covered by numerous notable sites for his officiating and therefore doesn't fail WP:GNG.2601:18B:0:212C:A029:CC8F:3CE8:8914 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And could you share those "numerous notable sites" with us? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand - WP:GNG could be met if sources like these (which deal with some of Villarreal's notable matches) were added to the article:<ref>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1659167-mls-system-for-officials-answering-press-questions-is-a-joke</ref><ref>http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014/05/12/la-galaxy-left-fuming-refs-no-call-portland-really-had-no-business-getting-anything</ref><ref>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2015/11/10/crew-gets-two-week-break-before-next-round.html</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedinboston (talk • contribs) 04:55, November 22, 2015‎ (UTC)
- All I see are mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This idea that MLS referees shouldn't have pages in absurd. Every BPL referee has a page that is acceptable in terms of WP:GNG. The MLS and BPL are both full professional leagues, so why the double standard?USA Refereeing (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely fair. Villarreal seems to have nothing more than trivial mentions and therefore the article fails WP:GNG. The BPL referees that you are probably referring to must have enough coverage from reliable sources to pass. If not, then I guess they ought to be put up for deletion too. Spiderone 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One must also point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. For the position of referee, WP:GNG must be met. In the United States, the low interest in association football just doesn't provide the sort of coverage for referees as it does in England unless the referee does something either quite controversial or quite remarkable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable sources are the main (not only) requirement. This person does not yet meet that. If you want to keep this, instead of just being a sports fan you should use Wikipedia-based reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Refereeing in a fully pro league does not make you automatically notable. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:34, 27 November 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. If the discussion wasn't already leaning to keep, per the sources provided by Northamerica1000, it clearly is now. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual direction[edit]

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

Original delete proposal Article completely devoid of references to reliable sources, mainly describing beliefs (even of other religions) from a specific Christian standpoint - see references (so article violates NPOV); recently a niche Muslim sect added promotional references to a publication by their preacher. A single main contributor. I am doubtful whether the subject "spiritual direction" should at all form a separate article when Spirituality article is there and is, frankly, quite exhausting. Proposed deletion, because I can't see what could be merged into spirituality and Christianity without duplication. kashmiri ^TALK 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unnotable made up crap pushing more mushy headed backwardness and religion, already a blight over most of the Earth. Lycurgus (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The Christianity Today (a respected source in Christian circles) article suggests that this is a notable topic as a recent trend. However the article attempts to make it about something much greater, involving all of Christian (and seemingly Muslim and Jewish) history. Delete that per WP:OR but with more sources an article on the more limited modern topic might be possible.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic makes eminent sense for an article and this is a pretty good start. Note that the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia had an article on the subject (linked from the article) and there's one in the new 2003 Catholic Encylclopedia from Gale, a standard academic work[26]. Deleting this article because we have the article on Spirituality is like saying we should delete all the articles in Category:Education_by_subject because we have the corresponding subject articles or delete Psychotherapy because we have Psychology.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems to be not true at all that there is "A single main contributor" (presumably User:Ekabhishek) I see significant work by User:Pixarh, the article was created way back in 2006 by User:Marax, there was an excellent expansion by User:Mouswj, and an initial expansion into Judaism by User:Rbarenblat, which was subsequently added to by someone else. Etc. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: there are parallel articles in four other wikipedias: Čeština, Italiano, Nederlands, and Polski, further suggesting this is not a borderline topic.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Really?! Spiritual Direction has remained specific practice in Christian monasticism for centuries, all monasteries have a spiritual director which redirects to this page, and links to important Christianity pages here. No where a fringe topic. Can be build upon further, clearly no NPOV issue, as the world has caught on with the term and new age spirituality as well.--Ekabhishek^talk 07:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a basic belief related to different genres of belief which exist under the umbrella spirituality. Not associated to one single Christian belief or Muslim sect. Infact, different beliefs have been covered within the same article. I dont see why an editor who has not contributed at all find it "exhausting". Pixarh (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Entire books are devoted to the topic: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. [36], [37], [38], [39] (there's more). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 December 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 Userfy. As per consensus and agreement from article's creator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WINTYR[edit]

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

Article created by a band member; the only non-self-published source is to their iTunes info; doesn't seem to check any of the boxes at WP:BAND Slashme (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator is certainly acting in good faith, and even reached out to a relevant WikiProject for feedback, so please be careful not to WP:BITE him. --Slashme (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; also can't find any significant coverage online from WP:RS. Norvoid (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 15:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet notable, not even WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi guys. Clearly I'm quite new to this. I understand the points and I did the best I could to provide factual reference for support. I am open to guidance if you can point me. It it's someone else that has to write it then so be it. I am after all, still learning here. Many thanks! tristcarmichael

Tristcarmichael For this to be fully notable and acceptable, it needs in-depth third-party sources overall from coverage such as news and magazine. If you want, this can be drafted and userfied to User:Tristcarmichael/Sandbox. SwisterTwister talk 21:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk sure, I understand..If it can be drafted into my sandbox for now I will update it with the relevant news and third-party sources in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristcarmichael (talk • contribs) 06:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify per above. This group is simply far too new to have received significant mainstream press coverage yet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) Sure, I understand. This info all follow shortly. There are a few press coverages coming. As I said in my above comment, I don't mind it being moved into my sandbox for now.

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tiny Machine[edit]

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

Teaching tool apparently recently developed by a university lecturer, no secondary sources (and even the primary sources don't appear to mention the Tiny Machine). Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 12:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, possibly speedily under the criterion A11. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not even an attempt at describing why anyone else should care, let alone Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 19:56, 27 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jewelry[edit]

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

Basically promotional with only borderline notability. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failure of WP:GNG and WP:COMP. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I couldn't find any reliable sources that cover this company. Therefore, notability cannot be asserted and this article fails WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep but will accept WP:TNT. A news search using the company's Chinese name revealed several sources which suggest adequate notability. I've found some in-depth news coverage from 2013 about the company's business strategy [40], and its merger with one of the biggest pharmacy chains in Hong Kong earlier this year [41][42]. Der yck C. 18:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't quite meet GNG in my view, for lack of substantive coverage. Also a little too promotional; if at some point sufficient coverage is found, then we're better off starting over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:55, 5 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jungiery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seemingly non-notable company with my searches finding absolutely nothing and the other wikis have nothing quite better, WP:TNT at best if a better article can be made later. I was actually PRODing this until I noticed the December 2005 AfD so here we are. Notifying past taggers Rubbish computer and Dtrebbien and the only still active past AfDers Bachrach44 and Dtobias. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the initial spurt of activity in June 2008 when the article was created, there have only been 27 edits made to the article, 7 of which were made by bots. The non-bot edits have not resolved the issue that the article fails WP:V. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was tagged to look at this because I was one of the commenters on the previous AFD, but that one was ten years ago (it's amazing I'm still around after all this time, though I'm not as active here any more). This version of the article is probably bigger and better than the one of ten years ago that was deleted, but I'm not sure about the notability; I'll leave that decision to others with more specific knowledge, if any. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians. Opinions are numerically divided, but the "delete"/"redirect" opinions are better grounded in policy and guidelines. With one or two exceptions, the "keep" opinions are arguing for the inherent notability of persons who have lived for very long. However, our guidelines (WP:BIO) do not provide for such assumed notability, and because this is a relatively frequent topic of discussion or contention, the absence of such guidelines can be taken to reflect projectwide consensus to not assume the notability of people just because they grew to be very old. The one or two remaining defensible "keep" opinions that make an argument based on the sources present are not enough to sway consensus against retention. Because none of the "redirect" opinions express or imply any interest in retaining the history in view of a possible future recreation (rather, the contrary), I interpret the consensus outcome of this discussion to be the deletion of a non-notable topic followed by a redirect, as in the recent case of Annie Butler. Sandstein 21:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Zachrison[edit]

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

This is a classic case of Permanent Stub. We know nothing but her name, birthdate and where she lived. If you look through the history and talk page there are even questions about what day she died on. The entire article is sourced to one local newspaper, Appropriately called The Local, suggesting the two short stories were simple local human interest stories of a WP:ROUTINE nature. Put her on a list and WP:NOPAGE the dear departed lady. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Oldest people - Only a few of my searches found a few links so even then, there's simply not much for this one-time event. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was the longest-lived Swede ever. That, and the fact that she also happened to die on her birthday, are grounds enough for keeping the article. Also, her predecessor as longest-lived Swede ever, Elsa Moberg, also has an article. --Marbe166 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the fact that she died on her birthday matter? Does dying on their birthday make them notable? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. The solution may be to delete/redirect the Elsa Moberg article than keep this one. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are more likely to die on your birthday then any other day, so that reduces notability. [43][44] Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to List of Swedish supercentenarians - Article tells us nothing of interest than what is already available in the various tables under Template:Longevity. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Redirect to appropriate list. The poster girl for WP:NOPAGE. EEng (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even a redirect would be too much. DreamGuy (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:Marbe166. also, by this revision, I think lost a reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

That added nothing of note, but rather confirmed she lived a long unremarkable life as a hpmemaker who did not even try to live long. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I appreciate that Inception's been adding ((spas)) to his/her own posts proactively, saving others the trouble of doing so. EEng (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOPAGE. No encyclopedic material. Not even worth a merge or redirect. 07:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Yet another "Born, lived, had children, lived, had grand children, lived some more then died after a lot of living" article. While living to a ripe old age is impressive, not actually doing anything notable beyond that is not grounds for an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Blackmane (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, I'm going to change my !vote to Delete and Redirect after some thought. There are enough sources to minimally satisfy notability, but the article certainly will not expand beyond a stub / start class article. No matter how in depth the coverage, unless the lady did something extraordinary in her life, beyond living over 100, there is little any article could say other than "born, lived, married, had children, had grand children, died." Blackmane (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the deletionists in this AfD seem to think that being the oldest person in a country and being a supercentarian is non-notable. But that is an opinion. The guidelines says otherwise. Period. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the notability guidelines does it say "being a supercentenarian makes you notable"? CommanderLinx (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter anyway, since the question at hand is WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB, not notability. EEng (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is someone notable because they are the oldest ever from a certain country? The majority of wikipedians say 'yes', however some say 'no'. Although there are no guidelines about it, in my opinion the answer is 'yes'. Petervermaelen (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Your comments are irrelevant because notability isn't the question on the table. It's WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB. EEng (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a rather clear claim of notability and backs up the claim with multiple reliable and verifiable sources with significant coverage about the subject necessary to create the article that is of typical size among our five million Wikipedia articles. The existence of corresponding articles in our Finnish, Russian and Swedish Wikipedia partners only adds further to evidence of support for notability by Wikipedia standards. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERLANGS, and if anything the Swedish version, in particular, confirms the WP:PERMASTUBiness, since this is a Swedish subject. EEng (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep She is the oldest person ever from all the Nordic countries.--153.151.83.197 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

that is a little hard to believe given 1200 years of recorded history. Getting old is such a not a big deal that generally poor records of it were kept until just the last few years, and then only in a few countries of the world are there decent records. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in sources and an all-time national record-holder suggests she is notable. As for the "NOPAGE/PERMASTUB" arguments: why are the longevity biographies in particular under attack? I don't see how they are any different than an enormous number of short articles on minor sports stars, politicians, etc. The general rule of thumb is that if someone meets WP:GNG, they are worthy of a standalone article. These are all individual people, not characters in a TV show. Someone who is the oldest EVER person from a country deserves their own article. Just because you personally don't find anything worthwhile in the article doesn't mean that others don't. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

As WP:NOPAGE says,

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic (WP:NOPAGE)

i.e. it's not about what the subject "deserves" but rather the best way of selecting and presenting information about the subject, for the reader's understanding. This isn't about what I or anyone else "personally" finds worthwhile, but a matter if editorial judgment: as with everything else in the history of the universe, we somehow have to decide what to leave in and what to leave out.

Longevity-related articles are being scrutinized because of the long history of abuse and disregard for WP policy and guidelines, as evidenced by the Arbcom case and the recent reimposition of discretionary sanctions. EEng (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how is it a better way to present the information to just delete biographies? Firstly, these people are all individuals, having longevity in common, not part of a TV show, video game, etc. We don't just put all Olympic medal winners on to one page, we give them biography articles as well, because they're deemed sufficiently notable. Secondly, basic details (born, married, lived, died) are standard features in biographies. Sorry that you find it uninteresting, but it's not a reason to delete. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to take your own example, Olympic athletes tend to have lives which weave their developing talent together with the normal incidents of life -- upbringing, school, work. Almost all these people did nothing unusual until they were about 90, at which point they began the unusual activity of not dying. Other than that they typically have led lives of exemplary dullness, with little of any interest (or relevance to their longevity, for that matter). That's why the details of their lives are unimportant, unlike those of Olympic athletes. EEng (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School? Work? BORING! DELETE IT ALL!-- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in the case of a champion athlete, their early life is typically the context in which their athletic prowess was developed. EEng (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Redirect She was born. She married. Upon marrying she moved and became a housewife in her new town. She had a kid. After her husband died, she lived with the now-grown son and, eventually, in a nursing home. She died there on the same date as her birthday, 113 years prior. A bit of horserace material about the previous, world champion old person whose glorious reign ended when Zachrison ascended to the coveted Throne of Breathlonger. Her son said she did nothing special to stay breathing. Her own mom lived to be 90.

Even if sourced, these facts do not amount to a stand-alone encyclopedia article.WP:ROUTINE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG It's precisely the sort of stuff that lead WP:PERMASTUB and WP:NOPAGE to counsel that the subject subject should be treated as an item in a list, with the name serving as a redirect term to the list. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it's all information that would not be available if she was just included in a list, so you've just presented an argument for why WP:NOPAGE shouldn't apply. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Astrid Zachrison is the oldest verified person ever from Sweden and the oldest person to ever have died in any of the Nordic countries. A comment such as "A bit of horserace material about the previous, world champion old person whose glorious reign ended when Zachrison ascended to the coveted Throne of Breathlonger", which was made by the above poster (David in DC) is downright insulting and clearly ageist. The most important thing regarding Mrs. Zachrison is not about who she married or how many children she had, it is that she is the oldest undisputed person ever from Sweden. This article should be expanded, deleting it is utter nonsense. 930310 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Insulting: The objected-to phrase is not directed at the long-lived subjects of the WOP suite of articles. It is directed at the longevity hobbyists who imagine that our long-lived brothers and sisters are participants in a longevity competition, replete with titles, record-holders, incumbent champions and record-breaking successors.
  Ageist: as the insult is not directed at people of any particular age, this accusation is unfounded. David in DC (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 930310, your sole reason for keeping this article (Oldest Swede) is conveniently displayed in the table at List of Swedish supercentenarians. So why do we need a standalone article when a "list of" tells us the important information (Name, age, country, Oldest Swede)? CommanderLinx (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sole reason for having an article on Frank Wykoff (3 Olympic gold medals) is displayed in List of multiple Olympic gold medalists. Guess he should be deleted too then? Oh wait, that's not how it works. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre comparison. Of course it's not how it works. Athletes have their own notability guidelines (see WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NTRACK, athletes that competed in the Olympics are notable). While there's nothing in the guidelines that says "being a supercentenarian makes you notable". Also WP:WAX and as stated, there is still the WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB issues.CommanderLinx (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A biography serves to flesh out the details beyond what a list does. One purpose of Wikipedia is to allow the user to follow wiki-links for more information on their topic of interest. This woman was Sweden's oldest ever person and was covered in numerous reliable sources... she certainly seems to meet WP:GNG. Typically on Wikipedia, individual people who are notable as individuals have their own article. The arguments here are not to do with WP:NOPAGE, it's to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject died at at 113 which is young compared to this spray old lady in China [45] who is 127. Sweden has a tiny population to China, so why draw a record from a small country? Where is the article on the Oldest person in Andorra or Oldest person in Southern California? Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David in DC: Stop with the strawman arguments. No one is claiming it's a competition. And actually, Guinness World Records award the title of World's oldest person. It is a title. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! Then why the stubborn attachment to succession boxes, listing previous "title holder's" and their immediate predecessor and successor. Why the focus in the text on the date old person X surpassed old person y to become the oldest person ever from Botswana, Hong Kong or Antigua. Few of these "titles" are bestowed by Guinness. The only people keeping track of these minutiae are hobbyists. Longevity is a fit topic for an encyclopedia. Bios of individual long-lived people should be restricted to those who've done something notable beyong having an expiration date that surpasses some of their oldest peers. David in DC (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac Firstly, it's not proven that that woman was 127. Secondly, Sweden is a significantly large country, 113 is a remarkable age, and she is the ALL-TIME record-holder. Even after death, she remains as the country's oldest ever person. That's an ongoing claim to notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find the response of Legacypac a form of discrimination. A big country is in his opinion more important than a small country? Just my two cents Petervermaelen (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my point. The hobbyists reject most Chinese claims to long life. Yet they arbitrarily segment old people into record holders for selected countries, even though long life has only tangential relationships to location. Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If tomorrow someone aged 110+ from China, submits proof they are the age claimed, the claim would not be rejected at all. The truth is that most birth records of people from China did not survive. This may be a shock to most people, but so far no supercentenarian from China was able to truly proof they are the age claimed. Petervermaelen (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant list per WP:NOPAGE and PERMASTUB. There's never going to be enough here for a standalone article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand with the Swedish language sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I finally figured out what is remarkable about these people - they managed to live over 100 years without doing anything important enough to warrant meaningful coverage in newspapers or books or TV. That IS an achievement record for managing to be so NOT notable for so long, so I suggest we make a list of them someplace to celebrate their achievement of not being notable. Legacypac (talk) 10:32, 5 December 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. Sources aren't amazing but notability does look to be there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Elleithee[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator without comment. My concern is No indication of notability. He is merely someone working on a political campaign. Not notable Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not yet independently notable and all my searches of course found links but simply not for amply better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clearly many in-depth stories about him that establish notability including from (just the first couple pages) the Washingtonian [46], Roll Call [47], Politico [48], The Hill [49], NYT [50], BuzzFeed [51], and literally dozens of others. He discussed at length in a number of books including (from my memory) Game Change and some of Larry Sabato's books on the 2008, 2010 and 2012 elections. This article needs to be expanded upon, yes, but there are clearly many sources available to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Dcpoliticaljunkie's persuasive sources. And a WP:TROUT to Nom for skipping WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 29 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Wayser[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), whom she works with doesn't transfer notability, posted by her and edited by her company. I removed a bunch of "refs" which were dead, on-line interviews or spamlinks to download sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes and the usual searches found nothing even for general notability guidelines (GNG), simply not yet set for an article. SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is probably the best option here, on the TNT principle. She might scrape though on the GNG – there are a good number of passing mentions, but little or no in-depth coverage that I'm able to see. I've added AFD search links for her stage name above in case those yield any better result. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 27 November 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 Thomas & Friends (series 2). Will indefinitely semiprotect due to repeated recreation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas and the Missing Christmas Tree[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication of notability; essentially a plot summary and credits, taken from the episode itself and/or IMDb. Repeatedly created, redirected and recreated by an anonymous editor who ignores all talk requests. Needs salt. SummerPhD^v2.0 05:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also applies to Thomas & Bertie, Thomas, Percy and the Coal, Thomas Comes to Breakfast, Percy Takes the Plunge, Thomas & Gordon and A Scarf for Percy, but I have no clue how to setup one AFD for multiple articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - I converted most of these to redirects, but the articles' creator was silently resistant and has now resorted to sockpuppetry via IP 2601:1C1:8203:A370:E5A4:2196:4749:782 to convert them back to articles. Redirecting and semiprotecting the pages would be fine, but I can also see an argument for deletion if the kid is gonna start being a pain about it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 10:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas & Friends (series 2). It is normal practice to have articles on seasons, but not on individual episodes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Thomas, Percy and the Coal and Percy Takes the Plunge can also be redirected to Thomas & Friends (series 2). I have retargeted Cyphoidbomb's redirects to the relevant article on the series/season. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect does seem absolutely the right thing here. If the user is being troublesome then it's an admin (or dispute resolution) matter; obviously the sockpuppetry can be reported. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a useful search term. Szzuk (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas & Friends (series 2) - Perfectly acceptable search term if one is looking for the individual episode, No evidence of notability for an article so makes sense to Merge than Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas & Friends (series 2). Not finding enough source coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the bunch of them for lack of reliable secondary coverage, and semi-protect. I was going to close this as "redirect," but I haven't the tools to perform the protection, so it would be neater if somebody that does closes this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W&S Holdings[edit]

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

No reason for notability, no references, written like an advertisement. Eteethan (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 as this is an acceptable G11. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 27 November 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 01:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl and the Dreamcatcher[edit]

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

PROD removed. Per WP:NBAND, nothing has charted, one mention in a gossip mag and other info is personal pages of principals. Looks like a vanity project for two celebrities Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If there is anything worth keeping it can be moved to the articles of the respective members. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not even generally notable (GNG). SwisterTwister talk 08:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. It looks a nice new band and we wish them well but they haven't attained notability yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately WP:TOOSOON, For some reason I really want this kept but there's nothing notability-wise so will have to say Delete for now, No objections to recreation once better sources pop up. –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 4 December 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. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lindlahr[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I think it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to have a WP:BLP on this subject since there isn't really much to go on by way of reliable independent sources we would need to write a biography on a naturopath. Ireneshih (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.worldcat.org/title/nature-doctors-pioneers-in-naturopathic-medicine/oclc/32140457 seems to contain a longer biography. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as Books, News (one apparent Chinese link) and Highbeam all found links but this will certainly have archived information thus familiar attention is needed. I think DGG may have some insight with this especially given the WorldCat link. SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable enough. Does seem to have been a significant author in the field. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG. Martinogk (talk) 03:20, 27 November 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. Any redirect would be a separate editorial decision. For posterity, this is the cited BBC source: [52] Sandstein 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Gospel[edit]

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

This is a neologism that one non-notable band has coined to describe the style of their music. It is not in general use. I note that the same editor has attempted to create an article about that same band "Chos3n" and had the draft rejected three times; they then created it directly in Article namespace and it is in AfD. It looks to me like they are trying to boot-strap these articles off one another. Gronk Oz (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Small correction: Chos3n (band) is currently a PROD candidate, rather than AFD. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. The article admits that the term is a neologism, so it's unlikely that any can be found. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - JohnCD pointed out that there is a compilation album of "Nu Gospel" listed on iTunes so there is some precedent for it being used outside of that one band.--Gronk Oz (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Ref: here on iTunes[reply]
delete WP:NEO no standard application of this terminology nor any specifics that identify such a genre not even any evidence of any widespread use of the term. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Following up on Gronk Oz's comment, I checked to see whether this term is used much in the news or books. I found no coverage of the term using Google Books, but some stuff did come up using the news from Rolling Stone ([53]), Consequence of Sound [54], The Telegraph ([55]), and two French publications, Telerama ([56], and La De Peche ([57]). In context, however, I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that there lacks a standard application of the term, nor is there very much to draw from this coverage to define or generally discuss the the genre. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Gospel music, per TRPOD and WP:NEO; beyond the sources analysed by I JethroBT (the same that I found), the BBC source in the article is also evidence that the neologism may be gaining some minimal currency. If sources can be found, this could be a section of the main article until – if ever – it becomes clear that a separate page is needed; without sources, there's nothing to merge, so a redirect is all that's needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gospel music, per Justlettersandnumbers; I've struck my above recommendation to delete. Not sure there is anything to merge based on the current state of the article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that article creator was blocked indefinitely on a username/spam block. Safiel (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gospel music - I noticed that the creator was blocked indefinitely, but only because the account name implies promotional use (the band name mentioned earlier was used) so I don't believe that precludes the editor from creating an account that is not promotional or (better option) request an unblock and a name change at the same time. With that said, when that editor created the articles I checked and I found a number of sources that use the term, but only one RS in the first two Google results. The others were short articles. I suspect that if this term does catch on, we will need to revisit the subject. The article is on my name space and I will watch for recreation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the block notice here, the primary reason was "because this account has been used only for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy." The account name was only a secondary reason.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are Chos3n was set up not to advertise, only because all Chos3n social media log on was that username. There was no warning that this would be considered as advertising (in fact i'm still trying to figure it out given that Chos3n is my band name not Chos3n. I digress. . . Nu Gospel is yes a coined term for Urban Contemporary Gospel music that crosses over to the secular market. A bridge between Gospel and Urban contemporary, a mid genre if you will. This does exist. maybe not on your 'hilltop' but it does. If Chos3n recognises itself as a Nu Gospel artist, and Nu Gospel is a recognised (albeit gathering momentum genre) you will find your first link between artist 'chos3n' and Nu Gospel' which was already linked in the first edit of my upload. 81.140.67.187 (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Chos3n[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.