< 17 October	19 October >

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 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Namaste

[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an academic, parked almost entirely on primary sources that cannot confer notability under WP:GNG — almost every single source here is her own PR profile on the website of a directly-affiliated organization, or a promotional page for one of her books on Amazon or the website of its publisher. The only source here that's even marginally acceptable referencing for a Wikipedia article is #1, but as an interview with the subject it's not strong enough to carry GNG by itself as an article's only valid source. While there's enough of a claim of notability here that a properly sourced article about her would be keepable, no claim of notability ever confers an automatic inclusion freebie on an article that's resting on primary sources rather than reliable, independent coverage in media. Delete unless the sourcing can be massively overhauled, no prejudice against the future recreation of a properly sourced version. Bearcat (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And improve. This is a new article by an inexperienced editor. It should not be deleted due to inexperience. Deletion criterion 7 is "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." Not delete because of no reliable sources after two days. She has written a much-discussed book and her work is well-known in her field. I've added secondary sources to Further reading.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work is reviewed in respected journals. She seems to be highly cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding many, many secondary sources. She holds a chair at Simone de Beauvoir Institute of Concordia University [1], she has testified before the Supreme court of Canada [2], she has been interviewed in depth [3], [4], and cited as an expert in the Globe and Mail, on a panel at the University of Chigao [5] and many, many more. SusunW (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Her book has been cited 500+ times according to Google Scholar ([6]), so she is probably borderline as WP:AUTHOR/WP:PROF. I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant accomplishments and sourcing clearly establishes notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely important academic and one of the most important in about three different areas, very widely known. This is the sort of nomination that can only happen when the nominator is completely clueless about the entire subject area he's making nominations about. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrollback

[edit]

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

Non-notable chat service. Sources are self-published, listings, blog mentions, and a yourstory PR "article" (the YS author is a yoga teacher/writer and former corporate lawyer). Google search found no independent in-depth coverage from reliable sources. GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source.JugniSQ (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't feel too confident here. There aren't any great sources via the usual search links, but Scrollback is a generic term, it's an Indian startup, and we certainly could be missing things. The fact that one of the sources (yourstory.com) is blacklisted is also concerning (looking into that). WP:NSOFT suggests that "it is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown," but we need more sources. If Priyanka_Nag or others can provide those, perhaps something more can be done here. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the Git commits are listed as a "source", you know you're not dealing with notable software. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 20 October 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 Move to draft. There's clear consensus here that the article in its current form does not establish notability, but if somebody wants to work on finding sources, that's always a good WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectPro

[edit]

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

I can't find references that establish the notability of this commercial software product. Mikeblas (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one, the links in the article go nowhere. I can't find any good sources in the usual places, and since notability isn't inherited, I think this has to go.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no obvious better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant independent coverage. Even if the refs in article weren't deadlinks, an online dictionary listing is not significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay, this is weird. Absolutely zip on News and Newspapers, but I get quite a few hits on Books. However, this is for software developed in the same timeframe as this article's subject, but the article claims the software was developed by Platinum Technology (etc.). The sources I'm coming up with however, say the software was developed by Trinzic Corp. So I am unsure if this is the same software or not. If it is, there is this, this (which is an excellent reference for notability), this (another good one), this, and this other good one. And those are just from the first page of the Books search. If these are about the same software, than it's a definite keep. If not, then delete. But if the closing admin selects keep, I'd be willing to re-work the article about this other mid-90s software, which is clearly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable sfotware product. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:ObjectPro and allow recreation to allow Onel5969 (talk · contribs) to work on the article with the sources listed above. Onel5969 has volunteered to do the work: "But if the closing admin selects keep, I'd be willing to re-work the article about this other mid-90s software, which is clearly notable." Allow recreation once the article has been reworked.
Cunard (talk) 05:20, 26 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreatAuPair

[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable, independent sources that cover this company in depth. No indication that this company meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for corporations. In addition, it is promotional in tone. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Howicus. Thanks for the review. If there is any promotional tone, please indicate as such and I'll modify as that was not intended. GreatAuPair was the company that began the online au pair industry, which is notable. Please also see similarly situated company's wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Pair_in_America — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFactBase (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources:

Department of State listing GreatAuPair as a designated Au Pair Sponsor
http://j1visa.state.gov/participants/how-to-apply/sponsor-search/?program=Au%20Pair

Proof of Trademarks
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4804%3Ammz53i.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=greataupair&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

Certified Alliance Member
http://www.alliance-exchange.org/au-pair-exchange

BBB Recognizing GreatAuPair as A+ company
http://www.bbb.org/central-texas/business-reviews/child-care-referral/greataupair-com-in-west-lake-hills-tx-1000103414/

Independent Industry Watchdog Review of GreatAuPair
http://www.aupairclearinghouse.com/GreatAuPair WikiFactBase (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the above sources show that the company exists, not that it is notable. @WikiFactBase:, please have a look at the notability criteria Howicus mentions, the general notability guideline and the guideline for corporations. That's what is required for Wikipedia articles about companies. --bonadea contributions talk 20:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@bonadea please reconsider your vote. I have reviewed the notability guidelines and the guideline for corporations, and there is sufficient support based on the guidelines to keep the page. While the Au Pair category may not be as large as other well known categories, that does not mean that GreatAuPair is not notable within that category. Here are several third party articles referencing GreatAuPair to establish the fact that it is notable:

References
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20110528/ISSUE01/305289974/sittercity-races-to-spread-its-web-child-care-service
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/4-tips-for-finding-a-reliable-babysitter/
http://www.dailyemerald.com/2015/01/22/cover-no-job-check-out-these-alternative-post-grad-plans/
http://www.thelocal.fr/jobs/article/demand-high-for-english-speaking-nannies-in-France
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/special_sections/welcome_home/article_08078998-ef41-11e2-9f8c-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/for-young-grads-its-long-leap-from-college-to-career/1261914
http://beta.iol.co.za/travel/travel-news/taking-a-gap-year-know-your-facts-1611059
http://br.blastingnews.com/mundo/2015/07/13-maneiras-de-viajar-pelo-mundo-gastando-pouco-00474813.html
http://themoscownews.com/local/20110711/188832128.html
http://www.eliberico.com/donde-encontrar-una-familia-para-ser-au-pair.html
http://www.ess.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/2014/06/29/valivuosi-viinitilalla-tai-kielten-opettajana---ulkomailla-tyoskentelyyn-on-monia-mahdollisuuksia
http://www.tv2.no/a/3364344
http://noticias.terra.com.br/mundo/vivernoexterior/interna/0,,OI862762-EI1292,00.html
WikiFactBase (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list of sources at first seemed pretty impressive, but they're all incidental or extremely minimal mentions of the company. WP:CORP, one of the competent notability guidelines, is pretty clear that these shallow sorts of mentions don't qualify.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you take a closer look, there are 195 news articles that mention GreatAuPair and 191 books that have published mentions of GreatAuPair relative to the services it provides. The General Notability Guideline states that the sources must be 1) Reliable, which they are; 2) Sources should be secondary, which they are; 3) Independent, which they are; and 4) "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Each of the referenced articles is relatively short, based on the content relating to the services provided by GreatAuPair. The fact that GreatAuPair gets as much ink as it does in a short article gives even greater weight to the mention. In each of the articles, the topic of GreatAuPair is referenced in light of the services it provides. If GreatAuPair was cited in only a handful of articles and books, your point would have merit, however given the large number of mentions by hundreds of different sources makes the mentions substantive, especially in a relatively small market and therefore meets the requirement for Significant Coverage.WikiFactBase (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current version is simply unacceptable considering there's no better third-party coverage such as news and magazine and would need to be restarted to be better. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ @"SwisterTwister" Many of the 191 cited publications are quite reputable, Chicago Business and Tampa Bay Times for example, and are therefore acceptable. Over generalizing and throwing out the baby with the bathwater limits the value of wikipedia. WikiFactBase (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per user, please. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimately, the links provided in the "references" section above are websites where the company's website gets a passing mention. There is no actual in-depth coverage about the website/company. Most of the sourcing provided consists of opinionated/vague lists of "useful" or similar websites, wherein this site gets a brief mention and is certainly not the primary topic. The "reliable sources" provided above merely show the company exists and do not convey notability. It does not appear that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As specified in WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. @Kinu ^t/_c points out that GreatAuPair is not the primary topic of the articles, which as noted above, is not required for establishing notability. The sourcing criteria for establishing notability are substantial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the fact that 195 publications and 191 books have cited GreatAuPair as an important company in its category is notable. As the first company of its kind in the United States, within its category, whether or not recognized by Wikipedians should in no way impugn the category's recognition that GreatAuPair is notable as having started the online caregiver marketplace, which was followed, some may say, copied by venture-backed startups gone public, which you might agree is demonstrable and thus notable.WikiFactBase (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are substantial coverage. They're all trivial. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The determination of notability is based on four factors as defined in WP:GNG. It has been established that the sources are 1) Reliable; 2) Third party; 3) Independent; and 4) Represent "Significant coverage". The argument of dismissing all coverage as trivial is overly broad and subjective given that coverage includes 195 publications and 191 published books, the volume and depth of which establishes coverage substantial enough to be considered notable.WikiFactBase (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to find out how this source, or quite frankly any of the ones you provided (all of which are of the same ilk), is even remotely "significant coverage". --Kinu ^t/_c 04:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in several preceding paragraphs, you are citing one specific trivial mention and then broadly characterizing all 385 other publications in the same light, which is neither fair nor accurate. The proposed page is factual and non-promotional in nature. The company is notable for reasons already stated and sufficient evidence has been provided that substantially meets the requirements in WP:GNG. WikiFactBase (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not characterizing one of your sources as a trivial mention; rather, I am characterizing all of the sources you have provided above as trivial mentions. Your assertion that the existence of "385 publications" is evidence of notability is flawed. The onus is on those arguing to keep to show not only what or how many sources exist, but to show how they convey notability. What are these publications? Are they reliable sources? If so, can we glean anything non-trivial from those sources, or are they just passing mentions? None of the sources you have provided do anything more than briefly mention the company. Unless you can actually show that there are sources that discuss this company in a manner that is anything more than trivial, my !vote stands. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knoji, an independent, third party publisher maintains a knowledge base, offering consumer guides, where they profiled GreatAuPair in a substantial, non-trivial manner. HubPages, a reputable, independent, third party source also profiled GreatAuPair in a substantive, unbiased article: www.hubpages.com/hub/A-Review-of-the-Au-Pair-and-Nanny-Agency-GreatAuPaircom where GreatAuPair is the sole focus of the article. Further, an independent industry watchdog, Au Pair Clearinghouse profiled GreatAuPair through an agency review. None of these mentions could be construed as trivial as GreatAuPair is the sole topic of each article. So it is proven that there are in fact substantial, non-trivial mentions that characterize GreatAuPair as notable per WP:GNG.WikiFactBase (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you appear to be conflating existence with notability. If the best that exists is a directory-style site that reviews (with unclear editorial oversight) every program in existence and other sites that rely on user-generated content (like HubPages, which most certainly does not meet WP:RS), then I don't think anything is proven. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable searches. Only trivial mentions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:GreatAuPair. I agree with the above editors that the sources here are insufficient to establish notability. I'd like to work on improving the article in draftspace with additional sources I have found. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no problem with the concept of a new article with proper sources being written about this company (assuming such sources can be found), but the current version is so bad, I would argue against moving it to draft. Better to start fresh. I've removed some of the worst material; there's not much left. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the company exists was established by posts early on in the thread and subsequent posts were provided to rebut false claims that over 385 publications and their coverage of GreatAuPair was trivial, so there's no conflating existence with the supporting evidence of notability. It's a given that a large number of trivial mentions exist - that's not contested. However, not all mentions are trivial as noted above. Since there appear to be a number of opinions cast about that refer to trivial mentions or sources insufficient to establish notability, let's look at the requirements of a source per WP:RS, as by doing so, we can separate opinion from fact.

===Definition of a source===

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

--> Edina Stone, an industry expert who publishes reports and articles on the au pair industry and the companies that comprise it, wrote and published an independent article on GreatAuPair, and would most certainly be regarded as authoritative related to the subject and therefore a reliable source per WP:RS.

The GreatAuPair article substantially meets the requirements as defined in WP:GNG which states that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Through several aforementioned posts in this thread, every comment to delete has been sufficiently rebutted with verifiable proof that GreatAuPair does in fact meet the following tests for notability, by providing sources that meet the following requirements:

Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

An example of a Reliable Source that has covered GreatAuPair in a substantial non-trivial manner.

--> http://www.aupairclearinghouse.com/Great_Au_Pair_USA_Program_Blog_Article

Sources Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

--> The source, Edina Stone reflects an unbiased neutral point of view based on her research and editorial discretion.

Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

--> As an independent publisher, Edina Stone and the Au Pair Clearinghouse does its own primary research for the protection of host families and au pairs and therefore has no affiliation with the subject of the article regarding GreatAuPair.

Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.

--> Based on the facts and not unsubstantiated opinions, the assumption can be drawn that the subject should be included. Concluding otherwise appears unduly biased and discounts the actual GNG as defined above.WikiFactBase (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the support provided by @Cunard and @RoySmith to constructively find ways to keep the page and not move it into drafts. RoySmith has substantially edited down the page, and as he said, there's not much left, yet it still has value. If there are any other constructive suggestions to support keeping the page, I'd welcome your input.WikiFactBase (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORP... I would be okay with it moving to draft, but I'm not sure it will meet the inclusion criteria any time soon. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:36, 27 October 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. SPA votes not based on policy or simple assertions discarded Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novara Media

[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:NCORP/WP:GNG - the given secondary sources are just passing namechecks where Novara has been mentioned as an example or had one of their interviews quoted. It is not enough for the "significant coverage" of GNG. McGeddon (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Conducting this many interviews with notable figures, including Jeremy Corbyn should demonstrate its notability. AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a radio show, company is run on donations. Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Novara Media is more than a radio show, it also produces video and text content. Its online audience is significantly more engaged than that of other media projects (half a million unique readers of Novara Wire articles). The attention it has attracted from the national media over interviews it has published should further prove it's notability. The endorsements from the Institute for Public Policy Research, a prominent independent think tank, and the London Review of Books should also count in its favour. Liveartlegend (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Liveartlegend (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. That is clearly incorrect factually speaking. It produces video and written stuff, and to a bigger audience than a lot of UK politics blogs already on Wikipedia. As for the donations part I don't understand why that is a problem, Wikipedia runs off donations! Mileyfan97 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Mileyfan97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This subject clearly does pass GNG: the subject is endorsed by independent sources such as the London Review of Books and IPPR. Moreover, it appears Novara Media was the source behind the major national story of Jeremy Corbyn and the possibility of an SNP deal (The Mirror and Daily Mail are referenced in the article) - I remember hearing about that one on the radio at the time!Disceaut (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Disceaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rename to Fully automated luxury communism and improve. My interest in this issue was solicited on the basis of my knowledge of wikipedia process, and only my interest was solicited. My politics are tightly coaligned with this area, but apart from finding "machines of loving grace" to be very silly, I don't think this is a bias. Per Org notability ¶2 sent1 the importance of this organisation is bound up with this particular concept, and its "demonstrable effect" in UK political culture. I find the other sources are passing mentions of founders, or quotations by Novara output by other media: these are passing mentions. There may be other sources that do specifically discuss Novara and its importance, but they have not yet been demonstrated, find them. Or, if in future they become apparent, use them. The key source is The Guardian which describes the concept and the impact as notable. For a minor left concept, mention in the Guardian seems to be a winner. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are too many SPAs in this AfD to close it at this stage, let's give it a week Kharkiv07 (T) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may not have been notable 3 years back but is picking up, a good site started by a known journalist..and also one of the very few news sites which licences its stuff under a free licence--Ste moc 05:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as far as I can see. Local media organisation with broad, national coverage, has conducted interviews with a range of nationally important public figures (e.g., Jeremy Corbyn, opposition leader in Parliament), content is open licensed, includes radio, conventional journalism, TV, etc. On Facebook you have over 1,800 people "talking" about the organisation at this moment. Often small, quality media organisations are just not going to have the quantity of external references and sources that larger media organisations will have, but this does not invalidate their inclusion on the site.Dune Sherban (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still would like to see more comments from non-SPA editors, with a basis in guidelines Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no significant coverage of this media project in independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the sources used as references are affiliated with Novara Media, and accordingly do not establish notability. One phrase in a reliable source like the London Review of Books is puffed up into two sentences in the article, a tactic which hints at how thin the independent coverage is. The closing administrator will disregard, of course, the !votes from SPAs which are not based on policies and guidelines. A media project does not gain notability by interviewing notable people, whether Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. Notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination, more sources have been added, and honestly I don't see the slightest problem, even prior. It's a notable organization, cited in reliable sources, that's more than a publicity flash-in-the pan.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see big problems with the "sources", they can't be used to establish notability, doesn't matter how many "sources" exist, most hardly count as a source of information about this organization. As of 13:22, 24 October 2015‎ (UTC) references 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are not independent, they either come from Bastani or his company, 24 is an interview with Bastini, that doesn't establish notability for his company, 4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21 are mentions, and is not mentioned at all in the text of 23, might be mentioned in the video but it's not even worth watching at this point. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete perhaps move to draft space -- this MIGHT be redeemable... but in draft space first... Too many problems to clean up in main space. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:39, 27 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velaga Venkatappaiah

[edit]

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

Notability KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a small obituary online [7], but I could not find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Not enough for an article. Jujutacular (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can actually be better improved as I'm not currently seeing any. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above....It is a obituary and not wiki note worthy..BrianGroen (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails notability stnadards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:41, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhushuk

[edit]

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

Contains how-to content, not suitable for an encyclopædia. See DEL14 and WP:NOTHOWTO. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 19:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - misspelled name; I tagged as article already exists at shuzhuk. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined speedy delete as shuzhuk has no content and is a redirect to Sujuk. I felt that this could be merged and redirected to the latter though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I meant Sujuk and not the redirect. None of the content in the article is referenced at all in the listed references and appears to be OR, so I wouldn't recommend merging it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on basis of article already existing under another name. No merge, since this article lacks inline citations, it is uncertain what is WP:OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 26 October 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 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to Secure Yourself from ATM Theft

[edit]

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

WP:NOTHOWTO Prod tag removed. Adam9007 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and WP:NOTHOWTO. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. It's not an encyclopedia article.- Mr X 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the initial PRODder. WP:NOTHOWTO applies. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete - Perfect example of WP:NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete This is that rare case that the speedy deletion guidelines are made for. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol use among college students

[edit]

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

This is simply WP:OR. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 17:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree that this is WP:OR and potentially WP:SYNTH. However, the article does include references to reliable sources that discuss this topic and a google search shows a number of reliable sources that discuss alcohol use among college students. See, for example, this article from the Journal of Studies on Alcohol, this article from Current Opinion in Psychiatry, and this article from The Journal of Economic Perspectives. An editor will likely need to WP:BLOWITUP and start from scratch, but WIkipedia policy states that "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ KEEP (the article as it is now is OR). The opening sentence says: "College drinking is the consumption of alcohol by students on the campus of any college or university." Who says so? I've never heard of "college drinking." Although Alcohol consumption by youth in the United States by college students, on or off campus, is a notable topic (in the USA anyway). Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfoxxe, I agree that this is blatant WP:OR, but that alone is not sufficient grounds for deletion when notability has been established by reliable sources (see my comments above and WP:DEL-REASON). Rather, it just means we need to improve the article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least we need to change the opening sentence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep. Topic is notable and important.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't particularly disagree that this is a really poor article, especially at the beginning, but I'm not seeing grounds for deletion. I wouldn't say this is original research, though WP:SYNTH may well be relevant. But we're here to discuss the topic of the article. As such, inclusion guidelines concern whether it's encyclopedic, whether it can be verified from reliable sources, and whether it's notable. These are properties of the topic, not the article as presented. I'm no academic, but I guarantee that any editor here, can, in 5 minutes, come up with books, journal articles, and extensive media coverage of alcohol use among college students and its broad societal implications. Someone should post the appropriate flags to the article to improve its substance, but the topic clearly merits inclusion. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH is part of WP:OR. The vary nature of the topic is original research/SYNTH.Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is now it is poor condition but the topic seems notable. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 October 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. Editors need not be reminded that Vice Chancellor of major academic institution(s) are clearly notable per WP:PROF. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Singh (academic)

[edit]

Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. Most of the article discusses a non-notable controversy. Reliance on India based news services, most of which are little more than blogs posing as newspapers produces articles and bios with a lot of dead links over time like this one -- Swapnil Joshi -- so don't be immediately wowed by all the references to India based news sites which move links and delete articles all the time. It's more troublesome since posting controversial content could result in all of it pointing to dead links over time which is a BLP concern. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- Non-notable bio discussing a non-notable controversy. BLPDegreaser (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In AfDs, it's implied that the nominator supports deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to feel like this article is more trouble than it's worth. The subject is primarily notable for his controversies, so any article we have must focus on those. Yet the sources don't really give much neutral context for those controversies. I'M certainly left scratching my head wondering what it's all about. So I'm inclined to swing to delete, unless someone can do something to clean the mess up. Thus us a potentially damaging BLP, after all. Sławomir
Biały 17:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless being the recipient of the Padma Shri award is not enough for notability. If this is merely a content concern, then deleting the entire article is not the answer. I'm also concerned by the motives of a brand new user's first major action being the creation of this AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard. No hidden agenda here. This is an article with a non-notable controversy about a non-notable subject. Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted. The article was reported for repeated insertion of poorly sourced content. If the articles only purpose is to discuss a controversy, then the controversy must be notable, which is is not. This is not the place for tabloid gossip from blogs in India. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." I assume this is directed at me. I'm not sure I agree with the characterization as "the editor". I didn't write the article, although I did at one point "edit" the article to reduce the amount of ephemeral gossip. But surely that does not qualify for the definite article "the". Others have done much more editing there than I have. However, I also do recognize that it is problematic, for some of the same reasons you have already articulated. Sławomir
Biały 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: 97.126.235.119 is suspected of being the nominator BLPDegreaser, editing while logged out, and has been blocked as a WP:SOCK.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the editor thinks the article should be deleted." Statistics show at least 8 "distinct authors" of that article. The article has existed for over 1.5 years. The only point of this discussion is whether the subject of the article is notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Padma Shri and Vice Chancellor of a major university are each usually considered sufficient reason to keep. So to me the only possible justification for a deletion would be that the BLP violations are so intractable that we can't possibly clean them up or keep them cleaned up. Is that really the case? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree per Uncle Milty and David Eppstein. Clean up? Yes. Delete? No. As with Uncle Milty, it is also concerning to me that one of the first edits by a new editor is coming here to start this AfD. Czoal (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- quite obviously notable, per WP:PROF, as vice-chancellor of a university. Deleting because of dead links is not an acceptable course of action; nom seems to be unfamiliar with the relevant sections of WP:V. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes the "Controversies" section needs to be cleaned up but that doesn't mean we should delete the article of this person that is clearly notable. Filpro (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should be snow-closed. Obviously, the subject is notable. Most importantly, the nominator and the IP were blocked for socking. And the IP made very clear what their motives are with regard to getting BLPs deleted or at least removing as much content from them as possible. Czoal (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the vice-chancellor of a major university for crying out loud! Even without all the other stuff. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure if this matters with regard to how quickly this AfD will be disposed of, but the nominator retired immediately after their block for socking expired. They are now using only their IP account to edit. Czoal (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conroy Stewart

[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced biography of an artist. Fails WP:BASIC for lack of available reliable sources that discuss the subject in any depth. - Mr X 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm currently not seeing much convincingly good. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am Conroy Stewart I've I think I have made the necessary adjustments in order to deem this notable. Let me know if I need to add anything further to legitimize this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourdreamsmelody (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also not to mention we've now confirmed this is an WP:AUTOBIO. mikeman67 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the company has not received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bamtino

[edit]

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

Article about a company that made a press release a few weeks ago. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 17:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's unlikely enough for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably to soon. Also Lightning Lab would be a better article to complete where Bamtino could be mentioned at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, lacks significant worthwhile coverage. Looks promotional, article created by editor whose only edit has been the creation of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Nominator has withdrawn the Afd nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adesola Kazeem Adeduntan

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I dont see any real claim to notability here: references are essentially about copmpanies worked for rather than the man himself. Article is probably promotional in intent: it reads lake a CV. TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep media references at the bottom of the article. South Nashua (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, did not see that this had already passed AfD even though not about a Pokemon character,TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 18 October 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 as this seems the likely consensus and the current article seems currently acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeralean Talley

[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People known for longevity alone should get articles if their longevity is strong enough. An age like 115 is strong enough. An age like 90 is not. Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources does equate to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-policy-based nomination, which appears to be based on I don't like it. The article is clearly notable WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yet another non-policy based nomination from this user (see [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). This individual clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 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. Those favoring keep and those favoring delete simply read our policies and standards quite differently. There is coverage here from reliable sources (and more coverage, basically repetitive, is easily found.) The GRG has been found to be an RS for such articles at a WP:RSN discussion. Does WP:BLP1E apply, or is this not the sort of situation for which it was crafted? There being no clear policy-based answer, I went with satisfaction of the WP:GNG (which is present) and the numbers of editors expression an opinion here. I think we need a general RfC and a resulting guideline to set more than a local consensus for such cases in future. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was keep. (non-admin closure)~~ HalloweenNight (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Too controversial for an NAC, especially by a quite inexperienced editor. DES ^(talk) 21:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerena Rivera

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP1E subject only known for longevity and WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. One of the sources even states there is virtually no media coverage. The sources used don't help either. 1 is a name and residence (1 power point slide of about 50+), 2 and 3 are a listing in a table, 4 is for her 115th birthday (note: this source says there is virtually no news coverage on her) and the last is an obituary. She is notable to be on a list, which she is on several. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Longevity is not one event any more than being an artist or a politician is one event. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per the last AfD which was only four months ago (not much has changed since). She was the all-time longevity record holder for Puerto Rico. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The prior SPA was (as this one is on its way to being) sock-infested. [13] EEng (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Ollie231213. also, User:Timtrent (talk · contribs) is doing created abnormal and inappropriate delete discussions many times, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeralean Talley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakari Momoi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethel Lang (supercentenarian), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gertrude Weaver, etc. User:Timtrent, your personal reason that hate articles of longevity people is not good reason to delete this article.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The previous AfD regarding this page - which was only a few months ago - was closed as keep. Nothing has changed in the article since then, so why nominate it for deletion again? She recieved sufficient news coverage to adequately source the article, and is the oldest women ever from Puerto Rico. Bodgey5 (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOPAGE, as usual. The article says almost nothing about her -- it's full of junk about how she was the sixth oldest blah blah, after the seventh oldest became the ninth oldest when the certified third oldest died and the second oldest had doubt cast. The prior AfD was sock-infested. EEng (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians, I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with you. Firstly, world's oldest person/woman/man titleholders typically get a lot of media coverage, implying that being the WOP/WOW/WOM is notable. Occasionally they don't, but this may be for reasons such as the person being in poor health, wanting to remain anonymous, or whatever. But even if that's the case, that doesn't make their achievement any less. It's still the same "title". Therefore, I think that a more general discussion about whether WOPs/WOWs/WOMs are notable needs to take place, to see if consensus can be reached. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOP guidelines for biographies state an article like this (one or two reliable sources establishing notability and notable only for her age) belongs on a list, not a standalone article. As stated, three sources tell us nothing useful so that leaves the 115th birthday (which would be a case of WP:BLP1E as this is the only coverage she got) and the obituary (which is routine coverage). And no, these sources do not provide significant details on anything but her longevity as you can see in the article with the two paragraphs dedicated to longevity trivia. If you take out the excess trivial information about being 7th oldest, oldest in Florida, etc you are left with nothing more than what is in the table at List of Puerto Rican supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She most certainly is notable. She was the last living person from the Florida, the last living Hispanic American, and the last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the 19th century. She was also one of the last 10 living people worldwide to have had that distinction. I actually met and interviewed her for Turning Point USA two months before her death, and I have more information on her. I will have it posted by the end of the week if you keep this page. ----DaKardii (talk) — DaKardii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE: I have restored this "keep" vote after it was removed by EEng. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: What I removed was a series of bizarre edits, including a spurious "close" [14], by an editor with with 34 edits who can't decide whether he's an IP or not. It's not my job to find some kernel of contribution in that kind of nonsense. EEng (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed a user with an IP. This is the first time I've done a talk page. Go easy on me, please. DaKardii (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so difficult to just apologise for making a mistake? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all apologizing‍—‌when I've made a mistake. If you can get all the longevity sock- and meat-puppets on board to not close AfDs after just two days, switch back and forth from IP to logged-in editing, and so on, that would really help. EEng (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the IP and the account are the same person? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP and the account (my account) are not the same person. The IP in question is "User 166." He//she is a notorious troll from California who has repeatedly vandalized articles on supercentenarians by doing things such as putting in false death dates. I, on the other hand, am from Florida, and have had the honor of personally meeting Mrs. Gerena Rivera. If you looked up my IP address, and read my article on Turning Point USA (which can be found here: http://hypeline.org/antonia-gerena-rivera-a-look-into-the-past), you would see that. Furthermore, User 166 has been banned. I have not. That alone should be proof that I am not him/her. DaKardii (talk)

Read my Hypeline article for information about her uniqueness and how she has affected other people. She gave a learning experience not only to her former students, but to me, who interviewed her as a project on the differences in outlooks on life between different generations. [User:DaKardii|DaKardii]] (talk) 12:08 24 October 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is certainly notable: over 115 years old when she died; one of the last 10 living people worldwide, last living person from Florida, last living Puerto Rican to have been born in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belandi76 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Belandi76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:NOPAGE. WP:GNG. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, of encyclopedic value in the article. It's nearly all "horse-race" reporting about a mythical aging contest. Human longevity is a fit (and important) topic for an encyclopedia to cover. But the mundane details of the everyday life of every long-lived person is not - and bloviation about their place jockeying for position in some fanciful race to hold a "title" or break a "record" is nonsensical and a little bit morbid. Are users of this encyclopedia expected to be looking for information about which old person on which continent staved off the visit of the Angel of Death by 12 days or 7 months longer than which other old person? There's a serious misapprehension evident in the !votes above about the meaning of the term "notability" on Wikipedia. It's not as loose as the conversational meaning of the word. Reasonable people can differ about whether a particular senior citizen is notable in this sense. But "WP:notable" is a term of art on Wikipedia, with a very specific definition. The General Notability Guidelines require non-trivial, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of one another and of the subject. We don't have that here. We have a slideshow with a picture of the subject and an assertion of her age from a presentation by a longevity expert: WP:OR? We have a couple of links to Gerontology Research Group web pages: WP:RS? WP:OR? And we have a birthday article and an obit, with mundane details of the subject's life and some "horse race" data.WP:GNG? Any way you slice, dice, mince or mangle these "sources" you do not wind up with a bio appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least not if you're following Wikipedia's rules. David in DC (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, not much has changed since the last nomination. On top of that, it's still interesting how some people can judge that an article is worth deleting when a quick Google search identifies potential new sources; instead of opting for deletion, they could also try and improve the article - as that would be a sign of building on the Wiki community - or labelling the article a stub that requires expansion. Deletion is not the answer to everything.Fiskje88 (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Fiskje88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Aside from someone seriously needing to put all the socks back in the drawer (there appear to be some on both sides), being a supercentenarian with a well-sourced article indeed seems to equal notability. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DaKardii, Montanabw, and Ollie231213 provide good arguments for notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above that the subject is notable. We have sources that document her notability, and there is precedent (and a recent AFD) that support it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as discussed in the first AfD nomination for this article, and many other AfD's regarding articles on people that are notable for longevity. Longevity of life is not a single event; many sources on longevity cite events that have occurred during longevity, such as 114th birthdays, etc - these are single events. Therefore, this article subject does not qualify for WP:1E. Also, it is important to note that people have been citing WP:BLP1E - this is different than WP:1E and only used for BLP articles, which does not apply here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above arguments and in fact there is no difference since the last AfD nomination. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of course someone who's 115 gets written up in the paper--but note that all the coverage is indeed from the local paper. That kind of coverage typically does not add up to notability. Sorry, but I don't see a lot of decent arguments in this discussion--"seems to be notable" isn't an argument, and "well she's the oldest woman so she's notable" is putting the cart before the horse. Nothing has changed since the last AfD--well, that was not a very strong AfD in terms of arguments.
So. Old people aren't inherently notable, though that may change, and thus discussion here needs to focus on the strength of the sources. Well, three of the references are from the Gerontology Research Group (not a secondary source, really); one is from "hypeline", whatever that may be; one of them is a slide from a (rather poorly done) PowerPoint on old people. That leaves three (3) sources that can properly be called secondary: an obituary and----no, only one from the Miami Herald, cited twice, and another from the Bradenton Herald. But wait, look again--it's the same article. In other words we have one (1) valid reference for the topic.
I have no doubt one could Google and find a couple more articles, but my point is that even a bunch of such articles don't easily add up to notability--not until there's something discussing her in any kind of depth, something a bit broader than the local paper. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. I saw your input here and wanted to respond to it. A basis that factors into your argument is the fact that the events that occurred during her life were published by local newspapers. I wanted to acknowledge this argument, as this point reminds me of how we define secondary sources on Wikipedia, and also describe their relevance or ability to establish notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies. Hypeline is the news website of Turning Point USA, a conservative student activist website. For more information, use this URL. (http://www.turningpointusa.net/aboutus) In addition, the GRG should actually be considered a PRIMARY source. It is considered an authority for the Guinness Book of World Records when tracking the world's oldest people.(http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/25/local/me-aged25) DaKardii (talk)

How is the GRG not considered a secondary source? It's not self-published or published by someone close to the subject. And reliability isn't based on media coverage alone. The fact that she is verified by the GRG, #37 on the all-time list, and also the recordholder for Puerto Rican women and Florida residents, is evidence of notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Antonia Gerena Rivera is still the oldest Puerto Rican woman ever and she was also the oldest Florida resident ever. We had this AfD just a little while ago and the result was KEEP, so why start this discussion again? The article is still the same as the one that existed at the time of the first AfD. 930310 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Lack of reliable, independent, signifiant coverage: The Gerontology Research Group sources are a research organization publishing their findings on their own website. Similar to an award's website publishing their winners. We need other organizations reporting their information. But "there has been virtually no news coverage of this woman's existence" [15], another finding by the same organization more important than her age or ethnicity. GRG only deals with supercentenarians. Simply being one, or being "oldest..." does not guarantee an article on Wikipedia (similar recent AfDs not keep'd: WP:Articles for deletion/Colombe Benoît-Leclerc, WP:Articles for deletion/Bob Taggart (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Koto Okubo (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Eudoxie Baboul...). Also how could these two data tables [16] [17] possibly qualify as signifiant coverage?

[18] is labelled as a local obituary, generally local news sources can't be used to show notability and I have verified the other [19] as being the same article. Also labelled as a "Breaking News Blog" [20] - "Local breaking news from Bradenton and Manatee County". And I don't think Hypeline can be considered a reliable source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DaKardii (talk) 1) The Hypeline source is independent. I would know, because I wrote it. 2) Regarding the GRG, if it's a research website, then how do its findings lack the merit required to be on Wikipedia? As a research site, it provides educational value, like Wikipedia does. By your logic, every supercentenarian article should have references to the GRG deleted, which would result in many of said articles not having enough evidence to justify their existence. 3) GRG has a table on the world's oldest people. It does not merely validate supercentenarians. (http://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTMhttp://www.grg.org/Adams/B.HTM) 4) How are local sources not evidence? Local sources are often used to discover claims of longevity and prompt investigations into the person's age. If professionals who validate supercentenarians take them into consideration, ordinary Wikipedia users should, too. DaKardii (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) I have nothing else to say about the Hypeline source. 2, 3) There are thousands of research groups all over the world doing all sorts of stuff, while they can provide good information, not everything they do is wiki-notable. GRG may be ok as a source for some out of the hundreds if not thousands of people they have looked into who do have articles, but they are not notable just because of what GRG did for them, they have other sources and/or reasons. 4) An obituary in a local newspaper (remember, both are the same) is not a sign of notability, think about it. GRG's non-age finding that I mentioned should be taken into consideration as well. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records, and simply outliving other people does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because she is not "notable" by your standards, her secrets to longevity don't deserve to be heard? DaKardii (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then they wouldn't be secrets anymore, would they? EEng (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - to List_of_oldest_living_people. Not notable for standalone article unless notable for some other reason than living so long. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not everyone turns 115. In my opinion someone who wins the genetic lottery is notable compared to other people. They are covered in the news and thus notable. Petervermaelen (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Petervermaelen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - While WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG apply, it appears the standard has been set that "oldest" in a valid category does in fact establish a thin enough amount of notability to count for inclusion.Tiggerjay (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where has that "standard" been "set"? Notability is set by coverage only. Certain types of people e.g. Nobel winners, are presumed notable because it's presumed they will have received GNG-satisfying coverage, to save trouble in such common cases. But such presumptions are rebuttable i.e. if it turns out they don't pass GNG/BP1E after all, then they're not notable after all. EEng (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to apply WP:BLP1E to any of these cases because they are, if notable, notable for life span and not as events. WP:GNG applies to all cases of course. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and Rivera will forever be remembered as the sixth oldest living woman at the time of her death. No one will have that title. 166.171.121.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sixth oldest of 7,300,000,000 people, oldest verified person ever born in Puerto Rico and resident of Florida. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Bearian put it better was "well-established precedent" that super-centenarians have their own pages, and are notable for that fact alone. While some have more developed pages, the reality is that most of them wouldn't receive the coverage on WP if they were not super-centenarians with their own pages. It was for that one-event that triggered a deeper look into the lives of these people and uncovered additional notable facts about their past. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a several editors have noted, the nominator clearly did not do a simple online search for sources. Also, well-established precedents favor keeping articles of extremely old super-centenarians. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Klamroth

[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)

Non notable individual. Longevity alone does not confer notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, being "world's oldest" or "almost oldest" does appear to confer notability... Given the large number of AfDs of centenarians recently filed (and many recent ones closed as keep, a few redirected or merged into lists), I think these all need a tentative keep pending review of GNG; or perhaps have all the centenarian articles discussed as a group. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:GNG and the oldest person ever in a country confers notability.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page about this deceased person, per analysis by Montanabw, above. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'll re-open this if anyone can show evidence that this has received coverage in RS, but offhand this looks to be a clear SNOW delete and there's no reason to drag this out for another 4-5 days. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Instruments

[edit]

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

Recently-published e-book that does not satisfy WP:NBOOK. A Google search for "Tiny Instruments" + author's name gives only 49 results – all of which seem to be either the author's website, Amazon, social media, blogs or catalogues. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 14:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 14:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. There are a few reviews online but they're from blogs and the like—notreliable sources. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. //nepaxt 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply no obvious improvement. SwisterTwister talk 08:01, 19 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vsun Mobile

[edit]

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

There is some notability claim, but this article looks heavy promotional Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no obvious improvement and the current article is not exactly entirely acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than a single hit which was a link to the company's website, not a single thing on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:33, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santanu Mishra

[edit]

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

Non-notable Indian businessman, SPA-written article. Available sourcing is about the Smile Foundation, not about Santanu Mishra. He is mentioned in passing, or acts as representative of the organization in interviews. The article's sources lack independent in-depth coverage about Mishra himself. Ref #1 starts with a 1-sentence bio, but that's all. I certainly don't want to diminish his accomplishments, but most of those details should be and actually are in Smile Foundation. Google search found no in-depth coverage about himself. GermanJoe (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely if it has the benefit of not having to encounter this article again including at another AfD nomination as the only alternative was to simply redirect to Smile Foundation but we can wait for a better independent article whenever the comes. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. If it has been created multiple times WP:SALT. Jbh ^Talk 11:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable social entrepreneur and an management consultant, hideous vanity article. – Brianhe (talk) 16:07, 19 October 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. without prejudice to userfy. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Registration

[edit]

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

I accepted this article via the WP:AFC process. When I did so it was a borderline decision, and perhaps an unwise one. My hope was that the community would turn this into a substantive article. However, my view is that this has not taken place. I probably made an error in accepting it. Thus I am submitting it for discussion and potential deletion.

The article is an essay, albeit with referencing. However, the topic is, of itself, bland. "Deal Registration" is simply the ability of a sales channel member to say "I got here first and this possible sale is mine" and this concept does not become encyclopaedic whatever one writes about it. It might be here as a reason to promote Salesforce.com, but that is hardly likely.

It also contains WP:OR in that it draws conclusions of its own.

I do not view it to be likely that this can be turned into an article since the topic itself fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 11:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 12:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy again if there's no better improvement although I have to say it would seem acceptable at first and with this said, there's no obvious need for urgent deletion and this can simply be worked at until set. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - industry promoting advertisement. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:35, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonga (People)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A clan and/or name of no encyclopaedic value - lack of decent sources makes both usages non-notable. Sitush (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding any sources to bolster a notability claim here. As such it's not going to pass WP:GNG. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for now as this is another case of immediate improvement being unlikely. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches didn't turn up anything regarding this clan, although I did learn a lot about silk. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 25 October 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 and creation protected after being recreated multiple times – Fake event that has never existed nor will ever exist given the current naming list. Kimberly is not a name on the Atlantic hurricane list for this year (nor any year, nor any other basin for that matter). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Kimberly

[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL item #2, "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with starting a new article about these storms that pop up. --clay 10:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
redirect to 2015 Atlantic hurricane season until the storm actually develops WikkiManiack (talk) 11:01, 18 October 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 group theory. There's no reason not to keep the redirect around. This will keep the current URL valid, so existing bookmarks, links from external sites, and search result caches won't go 404-ing on people. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group theory terminology

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a textbook reference. This article should be transwikied to Wikibooks. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with group theory: It's possible that the merger results in an effective deletion of the article. If so, so be it. -- Taku (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is inappropriate, see below. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no redirect, as an unnecessary and less encyclopedic version of existing articles. This article has been around since June 2003; it was initiated by editor Wshun who ceased editing Wikipedia in 2013. In the 12 years since creation it has received less than 100 edits. According to WP traffic at http://stats.grok.se/ prior to 8 October 2015 the article averaged under 35 hits a day this year. This article was formerly called Glossary of group theory, it was moved on 8 October 2015‎ to the current title by The Transhumanist. The article has five sections, each of which is covered elsewhere. The "Basic definitions" section is covered in Group (mathematics)#Definition. The section on "Finiteness conditions" seems to be covered at Finite set. "Abelian groups" is covered at Abelian group. "Normal series" is covered at Subgroup series. The section "Other notions" has two entries whch are covered at General linear group and Group representation, respectively. All of these topics are mentioned in the two articles Group theory and Group (mathematics) at their appropriate places. I see no justification for an additional site for terminological pointers, nor defintions. The definitions are an unnecessary WP:Content split. Also WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Considerable work will need to be done as there are about forty articles that point to this one; however, all of the ones that I looked at could be changed to pointing to Group (mathematics), to one of the specific articles listed above, or just removed without loss. If there is a reason that these policies should not apply, please let us non-mathematicians know what it is. --Bejnar (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to wherever appropriate. In answer to your request, WP:NOTDICTIONARY does not apply, since glossaries and terminology articles are exceptions to that policy, and each term is covered as a subject rather than as a word. Any facts that are included in this article that are not covered elsewhere should be integrated into the encyclopedia in the appropriate places. The Transhumanist 05:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have List of group theory topics for a distribution point, we don't need two such points. --Bejnar (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the horrible nomination rationale, but with no precedent for deleting other glossary/terminology articles. There are some features of textbooks that we don't want to duplicate in Wikipedia, but explanations of the technical vocabulary needed to understand certain important but specialized topics can be perfectly encyclopedic. This particular article, on the other hand, is a disorganized and rambling discourse on a random selection of topics in group theory, better covered already by our other articles in group theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bejnar and David Eppstein. Choor monster (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page that existed until 2008 looks more like a glossary, and defines some of the terms (which the list of topics doesn't) - would that version be more suitable? Peter James (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the germ of a good idea. Check out Category:Glossaries of mathematics for numerous examples. Choor monster (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to group theory - per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:36, 26 October 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Scramble

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A weak delete from me; there is significant coverage at Engadget. Didn't see anything else in the VG/RS search. One source might not be good enough. --Izno (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing obviously better. Pinging tagger Varnent. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There might be references in Chinese sources, but I can't find anything on the searches which shows the notability of this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:37, 26 October 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 Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry. (non-admin closure) HalloweenNight (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan State Miracle

[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, basically.

Indidual College football plays (or the games they were in) can be notable:

and so on.

This may become one of them. It certainly has plenty of media coverage at present. But it is too soon to for that to be verified. Shirt58 (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Part of Shirt58's argument is that this article was created "too soon" to be considered notable, however he has also included the Kick Six page in his argument for deletion. The Kick Six article was created on December 2nd, 2013, exactly 2 days after that event occurred. Thanks! Stubbleboy 04:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has bee n included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now or redirect to 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team#Michigan. This article was created about 6 hours after the game ended. College football games are dealt with appropriately in season articles on the teams involved. Individual college games only warrant stand-alone articles if they are shown, through the test of time, to be historically significant to the sport. It is simply TOOSOON to determine whether this game will achieve that level of significance. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of the article. I have been a longtime Wikipedia member, and I plan on improving the article even further. Why so quick to delete? To say that this play isn't relevant and unworthy of its own page is rather obtuse in my opinion. The chances of the opponent winning this game on the last play were .02%. This is a long time rivalry (See: Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry) and coach Jim Harbaugh's first season as Michigan's head coach. With this loss, he became the 7th Michigan coach in a row to lose to Michigan State their first year. Michigan had combined to defeat its past three opponents by a score of 97-0, and were actually favored by 6 1/2 points at kickoff. This is also noteworthy considering Michigan State at the time was undefeated (6-0) and ranked 7th in the country while Michigan (5-1) had already lost a non-conference game (Utah, 6-0, #4 in country as of kickoff) and was ranked 12th. I appreciate having the opportunity to make my case and share this information with everyone, and no hard feelings if the consensus reached is delete. I am a little surprised though, considering it is obvious this play will be talked about for many years to come. Thanks! Stubbleboy 16:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry per Cake and others involved in this discussion. The only way the page itself would be substantially relevant, is if Michigan State were to move forward undefeated, and then moved on to win the College Football Playoff National Championship. Currently they are tied for 6th with Clemson at 12-1 odds according to vegasinsider.com. I, Stubbleboy the creator of this article have struck my 'keep' !vote and concede that I agree with others to Redirect for now per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks! Stubbleboy 07:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article ~~is terribly written, and~~ needs a substantial rewrite. I am not advocating for or against its deletion, though I will say that a better redirect target would be Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry#2010s. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Primfac, I appreciate you assisting by editing the article, and for your participation in this discussion. However, calling the article that I have spent time on creating and editing terribly written is hardly productive or politically correct. For obvious reasons, your comment could very well hurt someone's feelings if they were more sensitive then myself. I suggest that you take time to review the policy Wikipedia:Be kind and in the future please consider taking a different approach with any criticism. If you read my previous comment, you can very well see that I stated I planned on improving the article even further. Don't be a jerk. Thanks! Stubbleboy 18:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I was too harsh in my criticism of the article. My apologies. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept and appreciate your apology. Thanks. Stubbleboy 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect to Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry or userfy - This article could use a lot of work on it, though I feel like it's too early for it to warrant a page as of now, since we're not sure if it will become a "legendary" play like the aforementioned ones. I think userfying it to the article creator's userspace and let them develop it until then might be the best course of action. Zappa 24 Mati 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another page about the same subject was created earlier today at 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game. Zappa 24 Mati 18:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AFD is about the subject itself (and not the specific article) I have added it to the discussion. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just combine any helpful information from the 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game page into the Michigan State Miracle page then Redirect? Stubbleboy 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant event in a significant sport. Considering the length and depth of this historic rivalry, I don't think it takes a crystal ball to see that there will soon be more RS discussions of this event than anyone can reasonably endure. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article on the game - The game's entire notability is for it's role in the rivalry -- better covered in the rivalry article -- and for this single play. Delete the article on the play without prejudice toward recreation if adequate sources to demonstrate notability can be found later. I think there will be such sources, but it may be too soon to say. cmadler (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the recommendation to either redirect to Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry or userfy, until the play's individual notability (or the game's significance for the season) can be properly defended with external citations. This may very well become a notable play, soon or by December. jFiander (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Historically, this event was the first of it's kind. Never has a leading team's punt been blocked in the final seconds, recovered by the opposing team, then ran back for the game winning touchdown as the clock expired. We have an article for the Kick Six event during the 78th Iron Bowl (also a rivalry) which has a section for Coaches and Players, A game recap, and even a Scoring summary. How are any of those sections relevant to the event that happened? Here is your answer, they aren't, and this article could easily include such filler. I'm actually starting to wonder had I have just waited and done all the work myself before creating the article if there would have even been a need for a deletion discussion. There will eventually be a Wikipedia article on this historic event, so I'm not sure why deleting it now would be productive. Stubbleboy 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing historically significant about this game, and of course leading teams have lost in the final seconds of games before, including the circumstances described. And, as far as I am concerned, someone can nominate "Kick Six" for AfD, too. If Wikipedia editors have to invent a cutesy title for the game or borrow one from fan blogs, that's usually a sign that the game probably does not meet our criteria for a stand-alone article. Merely being an exciting game is not enough; there are hundreds of exciting CFB games every season, and dozens are decided in the closing seconds. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're entitled to your own opinion, however you would have to go back and delete TONS of articles if this event isn't significant to warrant it's own. What about this one 2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game? Does it meet your personal criteria of being a valid and worthy article? What about the 2015 MLL All-Star Game? That's the 2015 Major League Lacrosse All-Star Game. What now, you've never heard of it? Big surprise, neither have I. Maybe someone should get busy creating the article for the 2013 MLL Game, because I'm sure it carries just as much notably as 2015 did, right? Stubbleboy 05:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I am entitled to my own opinion, but what you're missing in this discussion is that my "opinion" is backed by a sound understanding of WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY, WP:NEVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS, as well as several years of AfD precedents in discussions regarding stand-alone articles about regular season CFB games. You're late to the table, and you haven't done your homework. Again, it's not a coincidence that almost all of the long-time CFB and college sports editors are telling you the same thing. You would do well to heed those "opinions" because they are based on understanding of the relevant guidelines and precedents. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dirtlawyer1, I'd like to make you aware that in my opinion, your previous comment sounds rude, egotistical, and personal. I suggest you review the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks before making future statements such as "you are late to the table", and "you haven't done your homework". They aren't appropriate, and could very well hurt someone else's feelings. I'm sorry you feel such a sense of entitlement, and that your opinion carries so much more weight then other's because of all of your involvement on this project. There are plenty of other KEEP !votes in this discussion, so quit trying to be such a Know it all. Just because you claim to be a lawyer (and ironically one with WAY too much free time on his hands), and like to show off all of your PRIDEFUL little stars and ribbons on your user page, it means nothing in REAL LIFE pal! Thanks, DIRT! It's okay to call you DIRT, right? Stubbleboy 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have proposed to merge 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game with Michigan State Miracle. If you wish to take part in the discussion, you can find it here. Thank you. Stubbleboy 00:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbleboy, both of these pages are up for deletion. A merge request at this point is useless if they both get deleted/redirected. Primefac (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this really even have a name though, have sources called it the "Michigan State Miracle". Wikipedia can't create the name itself or people in the future will think it was actually called that. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the Kick Six article was coined Kick Bama Kick. Michigan head coach Mark Dantonio stated the name of the play was "Rangers: Mission 4-10", in the same article that is entitled "Mark Dantonio gave Michigan State's miracle play a name." Stubbleboy 05:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot possibly know if WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists one day, or even weeks after a game to meet WP:GNG. At this point, a lot of news is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of the game that was going to happen no matter what the outcome was. No point merging existing sparse, mostly unsourced article, when 2015 Michigan Wolverines football team already has comprehensive converge of the game, and can be borrow from there if needed for Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry or 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But yet the Kick Six article was created 2 days after the Iron Bowl and we never questioned it's relevance? Stubbleboy 05:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Bagumba's rationale immediately above. WikiProject College Football has evolved a very high standard for a stand-alone article about an individual regular season game, i.e., the game must have significance to the history, culture and lore of college football, the coverage must exceed routine post-game coverage that all modern Division I FBS games receive on the Sunday and Monday after the game is played per WP:ROUTINE, and the coverage must be continuing over time per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS. We are an encyclopedia, not a sports magazine or alamanc. And we do provide an alternative venue for coverage of individual regular season games in the format of our individual team season articles, e.g., 2015 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team. Any non-duplicate content that should be merged to those two season articles (with proper attribution, if copy-pasted). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article 2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game was created 1 week after it occurred. It highlights the biggest college football comeback in NCAA Division 1-A history. The odds of Michigan State coming back to win that game were .03%, which were even greater odds then the result of this game. Stubbleboy 05:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Stubbleboy: "This article 2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game was created 1 week after it occurred. It highlights the biggest college football comeback in NCAA Division 1-A history." EXACTLY: the largest comeback in the history of major college football, a tangible record that was widely commented on at the time and appears in the records books and CFB media and literature since then. Big difference. Quoting made-up probabilities and the excitement generated are irrelevant. This about WP:GNG, WP:ROUTINE, WP:TOOSOON, and the available alternatives to cover this game until WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE can be established. As for "Kick Six," please feel free to nominate it, too; it probably ought to be folded into the Iron Bowl rivalry article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a coincidence that virtually all of the long-time CFB and college sports editors involved in this discussion are saying the same thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TO THE AFD CLOSER, I nominate that Dirtlawyer's !vote be struck, due to his personal attack referenced above. Thanks! Stubbleboy 04:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Please see WP:NCR. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper source of action is to first keep this article and then discuss merging with 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game. One of them should be kept, not both. But before the merge discussion can be completed, the AFD needs to be procedurally closed in my opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is a possible outcome of any AfD, so I think it saves the overhead by just continuing with the discussion here, instead of closing, and rehashing similar discussion. Moreover, there are !votes to delete both articles (they are both in this nomination)—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This play (and game) is one of the biggest come-from-behind victories in college football and it is easy to find sources that prove its notability. [21][22][23] None of these sources are "routine coverage" and it seems like this has moved from a routine football game into the national headlines. I would agree that more detail would need to be added and the article might need to be renamed. Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All of those are routine coverage. Routine coverage is defined as "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." – and those clearly fall into a cross between sports coverage and tabloid journalism. Aspirex (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with much of what's been said already about these two articles. At this point, I think that merging the two articles into one about the game itself is the simplest way forward. The play itself doesn't have a name that I know of but is quickly becoming quite notable. Making the article about the game solves this problem and leaves room for a future article about the play to be created in the future. Adam Kriesberg (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your !vote a "keep" vote then? Most of the editors above want to delete both the articles, as they believe this game (and play) is non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2015 Michigan State Spartans football team. Personally, I think that, like the Kick Six, this game is actually a prime possible candidate for a individual game article in the future. But, 48 hours after the game is simply WP:TOOSOON to even approximate a guess as to whether or not this game is going to have the sort of long-term effect or lasting notability it would need to sustain an individual game article. Let's wait at least 6 months, and revisit this at a later date. For right now, let's simply cover it in the context of the 2015 Michigan & Michigan State season articles, and monitor the situation for further developments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shirt58, I need you to nominate Kick Six for violating NPA. And I'm going to block you for mentioning it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, are you sure you have the right discussion? What does the Kick Six article have to do with this AFD exactly, and who is Shirt58? Stubbleboy 02:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look up at the nomination. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an anchor point in Michigan–Michigan State Rivalry#Notable games and reproduce content in the individual team season pages. As Dirtlawyer says, at the moment it's just a wild play in the news, and WP:NOTNEWS covers this; we can't be making new articles every time there is a highlight reel finish. I would say that merging is the right option for two reasons: because the play will be notable in the context of the teams' rivalry, but cannot be said to be stand-alone notable, and; because there is no extra context or aftermath of note to bring the extent of the article beyond a single paragraph describing the play (cf. the 2013 Iron Bowl, which had immediate championship implications, etc.). Aspirex (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Kick Six page was created days after the actual event, and it got the same amount of coverage this game is getting. I don't think it's too soon to determine whether or not it's notable. ~jcm (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please feel free to nominate "Kick Six" for an AfD discussion, too; it probably should be folded into the Iron Bowl rivalry game article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable game in the context of the michigan-michigan state rivalry, but not enough non-routine coverage to meet the WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A memorable play in a rivalry yes, but per WP:TOOSOON I must !vote delete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NFL.COM is now stating they believe the play may very well end up "the greatest college football play of all time." Stubbleboy 16:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete memorable but not notable by encyclopedic standards. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michigan Michigan State football rivalry Regardless of how significant this game is in the UM-MSU rivalry is irrelevant towards the notability of this game for the purposes of its own article. This may become an important game in the history of college football and if it does then I would be happy to vote for this articles inclusion. But I doubt know how notable this game is by Wikipedia standards at this point. And, enough with the "Kick Six" argument that is simply Wikipedia:Other stuff. That game had immediate national championship implications. I would compare this incident to how we don't have a game for the Roy "Superman" Williams' game against Texas in 2001.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UCO2009bluejay this is a discussion, not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy and polling is not a substitute for discussion. Remember that while an AFD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Thanks! Stubbleboy 16:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbleboy, UCO2009bluejay has given a good explanation for their !vote, in what I would consider to be a well-worded opinion on the matter in order to further the discussion. It is AFD policy to bold your choice (keep, merge, delete, etc), so including that in their decision is not "just a vote." Primefac (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say he didn't have a good explanation? I was only trying to be helpful. He stated "I would be happy to vote for this articles inclusion", not "!vote", so I wasn't sure if he was aware of the policy. He could be new here for all I know. Thanks! Stubbleboy 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry section Notable games. I specifically bolded merge and not redirect because there are some good citations in this article that should be moved over to that section. Only redirecting to that section would be a disservice to the effort put into this article. Spidey104 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely the "Kick Six" is different in that it was the final game of the regular season and against the two-time defending champion. As great of a game it was, one is not nearly as sure of the national implications quite yet. Here's hoping it keeps Michigan hungry for the Buckeyes. Cake (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know @MisterCake:, you may just be right. As you can see, I have been trying to make as strong of a case as I can by responding to the majority of objections, I must also concede that your note does make sense. If Michigan State were to go on and defeat an unbeaten Ohio State, then won the Big Ten Conference Championship (Over who looks to be Iowa at the moment), then I'd say they have a very strong case for inclusion in the College Football Playoffs (having beaten what will mostly be two highly ranked opponents). Finally, if MS was to win both the Semi-Final and Championship, then clearly this article should exist without objection. Agreed? Stubbleboy 07:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The level of coverage in reliable sources should dictate if this article should exist now or in the future, not just because MSU theoretically won the national championship. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What x96 said. If it becomes a play which proves decisive for the Big Ten title, then I imagine it will get significant coverage, but the coverage is what dictates the article's passing GNG, not merely saying the conditions are in place for it. Otherwise BYU-Nebraska's hail mary and many other needless articles get created. Cake (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly an amazing play, but, imho, the most cogent arguments, aside from the nom's, were Bagumba's and Dirtlawyer1's. Weird crap happens all the time in games, even at the end of games. But definitely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One week later (10/24), ESPN has now released a new version of the original video including previously unseen reactions from those who took part in this historic play. Ironically enough, the article is entitled "The Michigan State miracle". Stubbleboy 03:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete. notable in other article as per above, contentious subject. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DangerDogWest:, would you mind explaining your rational for a "strong delete?" Are we to assume the other article you speak of is the 2015 Michigan State vs Michigan football game? If so, how is it this a "contentious" subject? I find it rather odd that someone would recommend "strongly" deleting an article of what is arguably the greatest play of all time in the history of college football. Stubbleboy 17:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Notable games, per Spidey104. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Note to Closer The article has now been updated to read "the Michigan State Miracle is the nickname given to what is arguably the greatest play of all time in the history of college football." If we have other articles pertaining to certain football plays on Wikipedia, why would we exclude this one? A valid explanation from anyone participating in this discussion would be welcomed. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

[edit]

Comment: the creator of this article, Stubbleboy, has left notifications on the talk pages of about 40 Wikipedia editors that he has identified to be Michigan State alumni, soliciting comment here. It appears he made no effort to similarly solicit feedback from Michigan alumni or other editors with a general interest in college football. This seems like an obvious case of Wikipedia:Canvassing (scale, audience). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I warned the user about canvassing, and I trust the closer wasn't going to merely count !votes anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I hope you also took the time to actually read the message I left on their talk pages before accusing me of any wrong doing.

Hello! There is an article that has been nominated for deletion regarding the Michigan State football team. I noticed you were an alumni, so I thought I would let you know in case you have any interest in participating with the discussion. If so, please just click on the Title as I have linked it straight to the page's deletion review. If you wish to see the article itself, it is titled Michigan State Miracle. Any thoughts, ideas, or edits that would help improve the page itself would also be appreciated!

I've actually been contributing to Wikipedia since it's creation in 2001, so I know the rules. All I did was inform Michigan State Alumni user's that there was a discussion they may be interested in taking part in. By no way was I ever trying to sway their personal opinion in one way or another. In fact, the first Michigan State alumni who did show up commented that he would not support the page. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Issue addressed on Bagumba's talk page. Now informing University of Michigan alumni as well of this discussion. Regardless of the school your userbox states you attended (which is completely unverifiable and irrelevant), it makes the event no less significant then it actually was. Thanks! Stubbleboy 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was ill will on your part. The message was fine, the only concern was the limited distribution list, which you have addressed. No harm, no foul.—Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alumni is a plural. I don't know if that's a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbleboy, I did read your message, and you should note that I qualified my accusation of canvassing above on the dimensions of scale and audience, not message. Your message is indeed neutral, but the scale of your posting is excessive and your initial target audience was partisan. I'm not looking to make a big deal about this, but you should probably refrain from this sort of alumni-targeted posting, even if it's balanced, particularly on college sports topics. A quick review of Wikipedia:Canvassing would be helpful. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment

[edit]

There is now a College GameDay blog post that calls it the "Michigan State Miracle" by that very name. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really is such an amazing play, isn't it? I had the pleasure of watching the game next to a Michigan Wolverines fan (I'm a fan of rival Ohio State). He jumped out of his seat and yelled "Mike...Mike.. No, Mike... Noooo!!" Then we just both sat there in silence for about 20 seconds. I was so kind to him, I looked over and said "I'm sorry bro, that is just horrible." I really felt bad for him, how sad, they had the game won if that punt was successful. Also, Shirt58, check THIS OUT if you have a chance. It's the Wiki2 version of the article, and I think it looks incredible. Cheers! Stubbleboy 18:26, 27 October 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 James_Barclay#The_Ascendants. Don't usually close on one !vote but I can't see any more !votes coming anytime soon & it does make sense just to redirect so wrapping it up now. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 11:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ascendants of Estorea

[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NBOOK, a search brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Barclay#The_Ascendants. I tried, but only found a review at Sfcrowsnest, which isn't the strongest of sources and is certainly not enough to pass notability guidelnes on its own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada

[edit]

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

No Originality , No Image , Duplicate and Not Enough information , Not Important Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada" "Gautham Menon" "Photon Kathaas" "Sattendru Maaruthu Vaanilai"

SOLID Keep per having the ongoing wide coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Sorry nominator, but please read WP:Deletion Policy and WP:Notability (films). Not to offend, but we do not measure film topic notability by its theme not being "original", its article lacking an image, the film being made by same director alongside another simultaneously in two languages (an issue for perhaps suggesting a merge, not a deletion), it being a decent start class article lacking information, and definitely not by a personal opinion that the film may be "not important". Instead, we judge a project confirmed as filming by its production having enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. As this topic has such sourcing available (used or not), we editors need to separate ourselves from any and all personal opinion and use a fair and equitable application of policy and guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE pre release promotional blurbage. What is significant coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "what is significant coverage?" Well... per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Sorry, but in my own looking I find more-than-trivial coverage about casting and crewing... actors and nusic and cinemtaographers, etc... speaking of the film's productions. Finding such for a project confirmed as filming, we have a meeting of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). While more-than-trivial is the guideline requirement, WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a policy nor guideline mandate, and for some 2 years of direct and pertinent information about this project's ongoing plans has moved beyond being "rourtine" WP:DOGBITESMAN blurbs. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – The film is currently under production: [24], [25]. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has begun production, but where is there anything other than WP:ROUTINE pre release promotional blurbage? [[26]] for instance is merely a rehashed PR blurb that the promotional trailer will be released. I don't see the the encyclopedic value in Wikipedia becoming a free media publicity vector -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Authored and detailed news reports from reliable sources even if short, do not fall under "routine" WP:DOGBITESMAN blurbs. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "authored" and particularly no "authored and detailed" - these are merely regurgitated contents from the press kit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if WP:ROUTINE is relevant here. Given the number of sources which indicate the film's status (as currently being filmed), it clearly meets WP:NFF. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move to draft space till the film is released - the coverage is merely WP:ROUTINE rehash of promotional materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) we do not have to userfy all forward-looking film articles, as authored and detailed news reports from reliable sources even if short, do not fall under the term "routine". Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears the film has met two good criteria: (1) It has received significant coverage from multiple different independent reliable secondary sources, as successfully documented, by MichaelQSchmidt, above. (2) The film has already begun production and is in the filming stage, per documentation by Vensatry, above. If only one of those two were met, we could have argumentation to disappear this page from existence -- but with both criteria more than capably met, it should be kept. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NASCAR '15. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR '15 Victory Edition

[edit]

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

As my redirect was reverted, I'm AFDing this. It fails WP:GNG and it just an updated version the game NASCAR '15 so an unnecessary spinout article. The1337gamer (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the parent article. I agree with nominator that a stand-alone article is not needed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nascar 15. Its just a slightly revised version of the merge target, so it makes more sense to just discuss it as a subsection at the parent article, reviewing the ways in which it is different, than to have 2 separate and redundant or incomplete ones. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 22 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pothanur Soccer Academy

[edit]

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

No evidence of external coverage of this institution; does not even seem to have its own website : Noyster (talk), 08:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any references discussing it aside from their own Facebook page. No change of passing WP:ORG like that. /wia /tlk /cntrb 20:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear WP:TNT which would be needed as the current version is not acceptable and looks like sandbox material. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. no indication the academy has achieved anything significant in terms of competition performance nor significant coverage of itself or as a result of graduates from the academy going on to have professional careers. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only evidence that this club exists (let alone being notable) is from a small Facebook page/group Spiderone 10:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see anything in WP:G8 which would apply to Top Dogg discography. If you believe that should be deleted also, please open another AfD on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dogg

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting canceling this AFD and re-listing with companion article Top Dogg discography, with options of "delete both," "keep Top Dogg and merge-and-redirect Top Dogg discography into it, and "keep both". Yes, I realize if you keep the existing AFD open and Top Dogg is deleted, the discography page will be speedy-deleted as a "page dependent on a non-existent page" but it's fairer to everyone to do it as a single nomination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply no better improvement for an article. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are literally thousands of hits with this moniker. But I went through the first several pages and other than an interview, there were a few trivial mentions, but most were about other people/groups with this same name, or using "top dogg". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heiðrik á Heygum

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources are not reliable or merely confirm certain facts. The foreign language articles don't establish notability. Gnews only comes up with 3 hits including one youtube LibStar (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Ah I wished I had caught this one in May as aside from links with News, Books and browser, there's simply nothing to suggest better. Thanks LibStar for nominating again, SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - he is one of the most important Faroese film instructor and also well known for his music. He may not be known world wide, but he has won a Nordic film prize in 2007 and several Faroese prizes, including both Faroese filmprizes in 2014, the Geytin and the Audience award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EileenSanda (talk • contribs) 10:39, 2 October 2015
Keep - in my opinion, being nominated for and winning multiple film awards should count as 'significant critical attention' (per WP:CREATIVE). Sietse (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's certainly a claim of national notability in the article and in sources. Given it's a small country, I don't consider a small GNEWS count as a reasonable reason, and WP:MUSICBIO certainly allows for local notability once verifiable (which the nominee has acknowledged). -- R45 ^talk! 21:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @LibStar: please expand on the assertions, (a) which sources are not reliable and why, (b) why "the foreign language articles don't establish notability". -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's notion that coverage of a topic by reliable sources in foreign languages does not establish notability is incorrect. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Foreign .language sources are just as acceptable for establishing notability as English language sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Foreign sources are just as acceptable as English language sources, per WP:RSUE.--Snaevar (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Pe Jhalak

[edit]

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

Non-notable show. No refs, no claim of notability, no in depth coverage obvious in google. PROD removed without the addition of sources. Merge and redirect to That's_So_Raven#Indian_Adaptation possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bharatiya29 (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per no rason. 333 -blue 09:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely because this only started airing recently and other shows such as The Suite Life of Zack & Cody version The Suite Life of Karan & Kabir is existing (even though it apparently only went for two season). SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (state) 10:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to That's_So_Raven#Indian_Adaptation. I doubt it would ever get any "in depth coverage" the nominator wants. And even if it gets some it can be mentioned in the main article. Nothing encyclopedic to merge anyways. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - marginally notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:44, 26 October 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) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Jackson (Basketball Player)

[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have met the notability criteria. PROD was removed without a valid reason. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources. A simple Google search turns up plenty, including this SI profile. Though the article needs work and should probably be redirected to Frank Jackson (basketball). ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a CBS sports profile. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been moved to Frank Jackson (basketball) by User:Rikster2. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent, reliable sources to support this article. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earl C. Poitier

[edit]

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

Doesn't have strong enough credits to satisfy WP:NACTOR: supporting roles in Remember the Titans and Drumline (no mentions of his character in the synopsis of either) and a leading one in an obscure Little Chicago. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Note that the New York Times review mentions him only in passing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. Pinging past user J04n. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear enough. No evidence of notability, and I'm not sure I would have even relisted. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 22 October 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. Clear consensus is that this is a copyrightable list, which precludes us from having an article that merely is the list (i.e., reproduces it); and that the list itself is not notable, which precludes us from having an article about the list as a topic. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

50 Richest Indians in the GCC

[edit]

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

This article doesn't have much of a use. I don't have a clue what the GCC is and can't find it on Google. In addition, if we even needed a list about the richest people, we should start and end with just people in general, not specifically Indians. -©2015 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 14:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GCC=Gulf Cooperation Council. Basically the fifty richest Indians to live in countries who are part of it. This is an annual list by the magazine Arabian Business. Cowlibob (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is list of richest Indians by notable magazine in vast area of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Many Indians are working there, rather that area is known for Indian business people. So this list deserves place on Wikipedia. I have done some copy editing on the list. --Human3015^TALK 23:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is, this is indiscriminate information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: this is not any indiscriminate info, as I said in my earlier comment that Indian community has some impact in that region. Independent sources like Rediff, The Economic Times, Indian Express are also giving news about this Arabian Business magazine list. And I already started on this list to make it look more encyclopedic. But it will take some time because list is little bit long. --Human3015^TALK 02:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe live with the Richest Indians in the GCC but the "top 50" sounds like its this particular list that matters (aka the Time 100 or something). However, we already have the richest Indians at Forbes list of Indian billionaires and List of Arabs by net worth but we don't have lists of "Richest nationality or people with this origin within another nation or region". There's probably an article on Indians in the region that could use a passing mention of this content at best. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be reproduction of a list produced by the effort of a particular magazine for their own publication, and as such falls under Wikipedia:Copyright in lists? Pinging User:Moonriddengirl who may have an expert view. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how they determine wealth. If it's a straightforward amalgamation of facts - say, based on tax records - there's no creativity in the list. If there is creativity in the list, say if they use complex characteristics to determine wealth (estimates of stock value, maybe), then there could be. I probably shouldn't weight in on my thoughts on retention of this list, but I'm concerned about this list for other reasons. The Forbes List is annually updated. This list is likely to go out of date instantly. That could be remedied by clarity that it is the "50 Foo as of October 2015" but that only highlights the essential question: so what? What is the encyclopedic value of knowing the 50 Foo as of date? And what are the potential safety or privacy implications of having your name posted forever on a top 10 website in the world listing you as massively wealthy? Aside from the copyright concerns, I don't believe that this list should be included, unless it is a regularly updated feature. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page indicates the methodology employed by the magazine: "... put together over the course of the last year by a dedicated team of researchers... we have estimated the value of their assets, taken their shareholdings into account and projected a company value ... this is purely our estimate of the Gulf’s richest Indians". For me, that is clear indication of the publication's creativity in their list. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's creative compilation in a nutshell. The page has now been blanked with ((copyvio)), AllyD. If the determination is that the list is notable, we will have to turn into an article about the list, not a recreation of it. For those unfamiliar, see WP:TOP100. Just to be clear here, the issue is that this is not fact they are reproducing. They are speculating. Speculation is creative. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:SALAT. Move over, one-eyed horse thieves from Montana. Just too specific for its own good. Forbes lists are more general. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COPYVIO of one of many lists put together by this particular publication, without context or additional information. Fails WP:GNG in itself and doesn't really provide enough to enhance and expand articles under the Indian diaspora categories. AllyD (talk) 20:51, 19 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone Capital

[edit]

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

Routine press relations sources only--no evidence of actual notability. Contributor has been noticed by others as a probable undeclared paid editor. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. A promotional article by a likely UPE. Jbh ^Talk 13:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but nothing outstandingly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 16:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - interesting they have been reported to ripoff report. fails notability standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Note - (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BLPDegreaser) Jbh ^Talk 11:20, 26 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese general election, 2020

[edit]

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

No Chinese-article, WP:BALL. 333 -blue 03:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. Will be a nice article in future. --Human3015^TALK 03:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe at least after the current election (Taiwanese general election, 2016) completes? About 2019 is a good time to start, when candidates start to confirm running. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as above. Nothing verifiable that is not original research can be said about these elections, aside from the fact that they will occur. /wia /tlk /cntrb 20:31, 18 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Calm // Your Storm

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable album from a notable band. Unsourced since December 2009 (probably earlier) and I can't find any. This is the Jesus Freak Hideout entry. No review. AllMusic doesn't recognize the album let alone have a review of it. Finally Cross Rhythms, who want lots of staff reviews because they're trying to sell the albums too, don't review this one. So, I'm sorry that @Sadads: does not completely buy that this isn't notable, I don't see it at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there's simply no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything reliable about it online. Perhaps there might be something in an old issue of CCM Magazine, but even that would only be one source. /wia /tlk /cntrb 20:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Sadads added Vink, Jan Willem (October 1, 1997). "Caedmon's Call: Houston pop/rockers spearheading CCM popularity". CR Mag. 41 – via Cross Rhythms. which offers a one-paragraph mention of the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album appears to be the debut of a notable band, with significant coverage in pre-internet sources, such as the one I added to the article. Moreover, there are significant mentions of the importance of such articles, such as [27]. Strong suspect of WP:Systemic Bias in the sources that we have available at hand. Sadads (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We apply the same standard to all albums by all subjects. Look at Amy Grant (album), Daniel Amos (album) and First Hand (album). All pre-date the Internet and all have been reviewed at AllMusic because there is no question about the notability of the album or the subject. This album was an indie release and just like many bands' indie releases, is not notable. When it initially stated that it was from Warner Alliance, I expected to find more written about it, but the source you added cleared that up instantly. I also just checked the Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music (2001) and in its one-page entry on the band (what I qualify as notable) it only lists My Calm/Your Storm in the list of releases. It offers no details, which means that the editor's sources CCM Magagzine, Harvest Rock Syndicate and other publications didn't have anything on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correction, it mentions the album (and its predecessor) without naming them: "The group had already sold 25,000 copies of their privately distributed independent albums." There's also similar information at http://www.connectionmagazine.org/archives_old/archives/2001/jan2001/storybehindsong.htm . However, that sort of passing information does not qualify as RS and could be incorporated in the band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album appears to be the debut of a notable band - as above - I my view that makes it notable. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NALBUMS, album notability is not inherited from notability of the artist. /wia /tlk /cntrb 16:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, according to the sources, it's their second indie release. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. There's really nothing here other than a tracklisting. If there isn't anything more to say then it can be covered within the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Nothing to show the notability of this album. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - poorly sourced. belongs as a one liner in the article about the band as per above. DangerDogWest (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator - page was rewritten-in-place using content copied from Color theory#Color harmony) (diff) and the page was moved to Harmony (color). See the discussion here and on Talk:Harmony (color) for details.

For future reference

(non-admin closure) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonic (color)

[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it presents a totally wrong explanation for how color works. In the first place, it is contrary to the quantum understanding of light waves, as photons do not interact (directly) with each other. Second, color is a psychological phenomenon that is created by the brain processing signals received from stimulated photosensitive cells of four different types, three kinds of cones and the rods, each type responding to a different spectrum of light wavelengths. Each cell only fires off a signal proportional to its response to an incoming wavelength; within the cells themselves there is no color discernment. Each photon has exactly one unique wavelength and photon responses are integrated over time, per the quantum nature of light. Color "happens" when the brain processes the different inputs, the proportions of the different stimuli dictating the colors we experience. This is the scientifically accepted explanation for how color works, without recourse to harmonics, and thus this article is completely bunk. TokyoJunkie (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @TokyoJunkie: You have not said why this article should get deleted. If you think that this article is giving some "wrong explanation" then you can improve the article with reliable sources. --Human3015^TALK 03:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Human3015: I don't believe the article can be improved because the entire premise of the article is an incorrect idea of how light works. For me to improve it satisfactorily, I'd have to rewrite the entire thing in contradiction with the title and the original contents. The explanation I've given in my rationale has been covered extensively in other articles on the subject. TokyoJunkie (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TokyoJunkie: You are saying that you have to completely rewrite the article, it means this subject deserves an article. You can create a draft about this article in your sandbox according to your time and then you can shift some matter from youe sandbox to main article. --Human3015^TALK 04:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: What I'm saying is that the article cannot possibly be improved in any way. Rewriting it wouldn't actually be rewriting it at all, but rather writing a completely different, superfluous article with the correct conception. The resultant article would be unnecessary because it is already covered by other articles on physics and color perception. It is also not very well-sourced as far as I can tell, with only two sources that supposedly back up the physics claims and one that is related to computer graphics and not physics as such. The article is in line with WP:CB, it is only weakly verifiable, and furthermore it is not notable. The only part of it that makes any sense to me is the idea of color harmonies, but that is already covered in color theory and therefore I don't need to go over it here. I submit that I am possibly being overzealous and that some expert input is needed. But from my understanding of physics and color psychology, next to nothing is of value on this page, and what little there is that has value is already covered elsewhere. TokyoJunkie (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we can wait for more comments. Cheers. --Human3015^TALK 04:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question @TokyoJunkie: Is this revision of 10:45, 14 January 2012 a reasonable stub to go back to? Granted, it's practically a WP:Dictionary definition but if it's not factually incorrect then I would rather revert to and build on it than delete the page entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 October 2015

@Davidwr: Yeah, we can sort of do that. Instead of just going back to a dictionary definition, I suggest (per below) we rename it to "Color harmony" or "Harmony (color)" and use the existing text from the color harmony section of color theory as the foundation to expand upon. TokyoJunkie (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this outcome. Once all participants have said either "I like this outcome" or at least "I can live with this outcome" you can withdraw/speedy-close the AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/TNT No rationale from nom to completely delete (= not wanting any article having to do with harmonic/ious colors). If the content is wrong on a faulty premise, dump the whole thing and rewrite from scratch. That a topic is already covered in a more general article (Color theory#Color harmony) doesn't mean it cannot be split when exceptional separate notability is present. This book [28] on color (theory) among possibly others has a whole chapter on harmony of colors. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hisashiyarouin: You know, that is a good point. Color harmony might just warrant a whole article of its own since it is a rather deep topic of study. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Color harmony" with the existing text from the corresponding section in color theory as the foundation? TokyoJunkie (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I've decided to rescind the deletion nomination in favor of turning it into a separate article under Harmony (color). I will get rid of all the nonsense and use the section from color theory as the foundation text. TokyoJunkie (talk) 06:21, 18 October 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. Michig (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HLZBLZ

[edit]

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

Corporation doesn't show notability. The company is also in one city, not nationwide. //nepaxt 01:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 02:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches simply found nothing better than using "HLZBLZ HellzBellz" for a few links at News and browser. Pinging Diannaa and C.Fred. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any claim to notability or any in-depth coverage in the media. I don't think the company meets our notability requirements at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I can find the company mentioned in secondary sources, there's no depth of coverage. Further, it's mentioned in the context of a collaboration with another designer or manufacturer on a product. Based on what's presented in the article, plus SwisterTwister's search findings (or lack thereof), I don't think this company meets WP:CORP. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has had three weeks now and while there is a slight numerical majority in favour of keeping there isn't a clear consensus. Michig (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (scholar)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fail to pass general notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is a notable scholar and politician in Bangladesh history. He has been studied widely in academia and has many notable books, as indicated in the article. I believe this nomination is invalid. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this nomination flawed on procedural grounds? The prior decision was a keep.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to bring it back to AFD so soon, but not unusual to do so. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous AfD was "keep" based only on the assertion of a few eds. Sources here are just a few web pages. Is there anything more definitive that would demonstrate notability, because it appears to be lacking at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it have been better to seek the attention of someone from Bangladesh, like a scholar from that country or an expert on the topic before you nominated the article a 2nd time? This is going to be a difficult article to evaluate because 1) his name seems rather common in Bangladesh 2) academics are difficult even when they come from your own country! So my vote is...
Keep and get expert advice if expert says not notable, then delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, nom wasn't involved in the first discussion, and did wait six months for reliable sources to be found. Oh, and nom is from Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examining the cited sources, we have: a self-published blog (marrf), a political party "supporters' forum", and a book with a scholarly appearance (although from a publisher that, as of the publication date had "recently been restructured to include a self-publishing division"). Whether the book is a reliable source or not, its sole contribution to the article is the sentence, "1974:Maulana Abdur Rahim, a senior leader of the provincial party before 1971, returns to Dhaka."

Are there other sources out there that establish notability? The first deletion discussion identified none. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR for this Abdur Rahim uncovered two positive matches and one possible one. [29] and [30] (which share an author, so are not independent of each other) each include one sentence about him:

"Maulana Abdur Rahim, who was the first ameer of Jamaat in the then East Pakistan, was the brain behind the unity."
"Taking advantage of this, Maulana Abdur Rahim, the first Jamaat ameer for East Pakistan, brought religion-based parties, including Jamaat, Nezam-e-Islam and Khelafat-i-Rabbani, under a common umbrella, Islamic Democratic League (IDL) on October 23, 1977."

[31] includes a "Maulana Abdur Rahim" in a list of war criminals. It is unclear whether it is the same person or not.

One or two independent, reliable, secondary sources with between them at most two sentences on the topic, does not prove that the subject has received significant coverage, so none of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC have been met. The article's original author has asserted in these deletion discussions that the subject is notable. No objection to userfication to let him continue looking for sources, but the article as it stands does not belong in mainspace. Worldbruce (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it seems Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk · contribs) is doing several ill-informed AfD. This should be a speedy closure. Yes, Maulana Abdur Rahim is the same person ('Mawlana' is a title, not a name). See for example "Moulana Abdur Rahim, the Naebe Ameer (vice chairman) of the All Pakistan Jamaat", "to revive the party, which led to a tug of war in its leadership — the opposing faction headed by Moulana Abdur Rahim", "Jamaat-i Islami Maulana Abdur Rahim, Ameer, East Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami", etc. (Amer = Leader). --Soman (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above demonstrate that Abdur Rahim was a leading political figure in Bangladesh in the 1970s. Unless people here read Bengali and have consulted relevant Bengali sources, I would question the claim there is no indication of notability. The provided sources are enough to show he is notable and justify a stub article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 25 October 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.