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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Bomber Society[edit]

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

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

No reliable third-party sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 23:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 10 September 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 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility[edit]

European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG. No significant independent sources on this group. Group advocates for FRINGE science. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets, WP:NONPROFIT. Can you specify and reference what you mean with, Group advocates for FRINGE science.? You seem to be the first to claim that this network of researchers advocates fringe science. prokaryotes (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with more authority references. prokaryotes (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is one (1) independent, reliable source (as far as I can tell at this point) and that is the SciDev article. Jytdog (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question, also it seems that you have issue with counting. Notice that the editor removed reliable sources. prokaryotes (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

press releases are not reliable sources, nor are they independent. I already told you this, but look at the bottom of the phys.org source, where it says "Provided by: European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility". Press releases are not independent and not reliable beyond a claim about what the organization says about itself. It doesn't count toward NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the Physorg source is used for the lede outline. However, you still do not respond in regards to your claims that ENSSER is a fringe group or why you removed reliable sources from the article. A dialog always includes 2 sides, so far you ignore my questions - in regards to serious accusations.prokaryotes (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Prokaryotes. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. The fact that the group may advocate for fringe science (if Jytdog is correct) does not make the group non-notable nor prohibit its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP does not censor, nor do we limit inclusion to those groups which are politically correct. GregJackP Boomer! 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

response above fails to deal with lack of independent sourcing, which is the first reason given. Smoke, not light. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Forbes
• Phys.org
• Reason.com
• Science 2.0
• book 1
• book 2
• book 3
• book 4, Ronald Bailey, The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century 143 (2015).
• book 5
• book 6
• book 7

I could go on. You really should have done WP:BEFORE. Smoke and light? Really? GregJackP Boomer! 18:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you have presented there are a bunch of passing mentions. Being good at press releases =/= NOTABILITY. And for the second time here, phys.org is a press release. What you value so much as "content creation" seems to have incredibly low standards and yes, I was already aware of these mentions. Most of them point out the FRINGE nature of the group, if you have bothered to read the sources you brought. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. The Forbes article talks about the organization and completely discredits any serious scientific chops it claims. The Phys.org is completely about ENSSER, and is not a PR. Reason spends the entire article refuting the position of ENSSER. It's positions are covered in the books listed, usually with a comment that ENSSER is wrong. That's GNG, and you don't get to censor things that you do not like. Screaming "FRINGE" does not mean you get to ban mention of notable groups from WP. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, at the bottom of the phys.org source it says it comes direct from ENSSER. That is the bulk of the content on phys.org - it publishes press releases and puts statements like that at the bottom. I am not censoring; there is a lack of sourcing giving significant discussion to this tiny advocacy organization. Jytdog (talk)

With regard to the Forbes source, that is written by Jon Entine. In all my work on GMOs, I never cite him, as he is a known advocate for GMOs. The GMO articles would look very different if I actually edited like you claim I do. I only use high quality, independent sources. And in this case, the only thing that comes close and that provides significant discussion is the SciDev piece. If this article is a "keep", this may be a case to cite Entine, since the whole article is about advocacy anyway. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book 4 link isn't working. prokaryotes (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The organisation is presented in a paper that I found though google scholar and is found here. The second of the two editors seems to have done a range of other scholarly work presuming that this is the same person. GregKaye 17:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG, there needs to be independent reliable sources about the organization', not its members. There is exactly one. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The organization has received coverage from the Huffington Post, the Economist, and the LA Times, and other media outlets. The article meets WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per GregJack's excellent research of numerous sources to counteract any disagreements. I'm a little confused as to why this was nominated when there is so much coverage that can be easily found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as above, passing mentions are not useful for establishing NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, the articles cited here include more than "passing mentions" of this organization. For example, the GMO Journal article discusses the context of the group's advocacy in the larger GM food debate, and the Forbes article discusses the merits of the group's statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The GMO Journal site is a blog. The internet is full of blogs about GMOs. I never use them - they are not the kind of high quality sources we should use on controversial topics. There are probably many, many, many more similar sites that could be added as well; there is tons of anti-GMO advocacy on the web. GMOs are a science-based topic, not video games. Bringing those sources in would turn GMOs into Gamergate. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, that's a fair point — I shouldn't have brought in GMO Journal as a source. However, there are enough reliable sources that describe this group in sufficient depth and detail. You can see some of these sources in the section of the article about the group's activities, which I have recently expanded. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article clearly serves a useful purpose and has some credible sources behind it. I'll be the first to admit that it could be improved and expanded--so let's just do that, rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garagepunk66 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 September 2015(UTC)

• I just want to cite NOTABILITY here: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Where is the "significant independent coverage"? A bunch of passing mentions related to their PR around their claim that there is no consensus on the safety of GM food, doesn't cut it, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there are publications in the article (which Jytdog btw tried to remove), published in a peer reviewed journal. There is especially extensive coverage in regards to 1 of those publications. prokaryotes (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; although I do sympathise with Jytdog's comments I'm afraid arguments otherwise are prevalent and have greater weight. A cursory search has demonstrated this passes general notability. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and snow close with a trout for OP, as this organization has published articles whose inclusion OP is actively arguing against at Genetically modified foods, to no avail. It strikes me as bad form and a bit underhanded, this. The ENSSER published a paper which calls attention to the work done by OP at the GMO article. petrarchan47คุก 04:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above keeps, and as Petrachan47 points out, the OP is promoting an Afd that gives a strong suggestion of manipulation. My credulity is strained by this Afd, which appears to be part of an ongoing pattern. Jusdafax 06:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia requires 2 reliable sources at a minimum, and 3 if there is doubt. Can someone who votes keep please show the 2-3 sources which confirm WP:N? Only show 2-3 that pass.. I am ready to change my vote when someone shows those best sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 9 September 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. Now it's been up a week I kinda think it's a bit moronic to Speedy Keep however it's obvious BEFORE wasn't followed so should've been Speedied a week ago, Twister's found some good sources so I'm wrapping this up as a Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Zivoni[edit]

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

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

May not meet notability standards. Charlie the Pig (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, speedy close. Nominator makes no substantive arguments to support deletion and plainly has not complied with WP:BEFORE. Article makes plausible claims of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure - That may be so and my searches found several results here and here so this will likely need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical commission[edit]

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

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

Incoherent Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although I'd suggest the nominator add a little more information to their nomination in the future, my searches found nothing better FWIW. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poinsignon family[edit]

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

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

I'm unable to find sources about the Poinsignon family and any connection between different Poinsignons and whether they're linked to the subject family. The article also fails to identify its members by full names. TheGGoose (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the subject may be notable, in its current state it is very hard to identify the subject and find additional sources. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as details about this may be archived away or perished with time as the best results I found was this. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 10 September 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 Conker (series). Drmies (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conker characters[edit]

List of Conker characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT. Also, everything is unsourced. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But add verified WP:Citation for each character. This would be in the scope of WP:VG as there are lists of other prominent game series such as List of Donkey Kong characters which have been adopted by the project. Gaming4JC (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my keep votes for the Sly Cooper and Spyro character lists notwithstanding, I disagree that the Conker series is notable enough for WP:SPINOUT to be a valid argument. Especially considering that it consists of only two games and is based off Diddy Kong Racing, which itself isn't a well-known game Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, stronger merge similarly reasoned as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon, but less keepable as Satellizer points out that the Conker "series" is not really a series, with just one (NES) game and one (XBox) remake. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Conker (series). Given that CBF and L&R are effectively the same game, a two-game series really doesn't need a separate list of characters. After trimming fancruft, this easily can fit into the Conker (series) page. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per Satellizer and Masem, to the series article. (Which is hardly warranted itself, but even if that ever got deleted/redirected, the content could then just be merged into the respective game articles...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gnoozle[edit]

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

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

My searches simply found nothing better than these links (there's no move target for this orphan) and I considered PRODing this but I wanted comments especially from past editors Mcmatter and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My only contribution was from 5 years ago and I tried to CSD it then, there have been no improvements and the article fails all notability thresholds.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it looks pretty non notable to me. I think a prod could have done the job too. I voted for software to be included in A7. But at that point it was not included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Rizzotto[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I don't read Latvian, but I checked out the sources with Google Translate.

The first source gives a brief rundown of his professional life, but does not assert any special notability; he is a member of several musician's guilds, but that does not make him notable. He's played several concerts, but ditto.

The second source is an interview of sorts, but again, I couldn't find anything that makes him inherently notable. I should note, though, that these *are* two independent, notable sources with significant coverage on him, which might let him squeak through WP:MUSICBIO.

The third source is his own webpage and can be disregarded.

Overall, I think a case could be made for notability, but I don't think he's quite there. Ashenai (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; no case could be made for notability whatsoever. No extensive coverage, no criteria of WP:MUSIC fulfilled. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now (feel free to draft & userfy) as my searches found nothing convincingly good to suggest better improvement here (probably the best results). SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sly Cooper characters[edit]

List of Sly Cooper characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. Also, only five references are cited, all of which are far from reliable. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid WP:SPINOUT of the main game series article, split off to keep the main article of reasonable length. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Sly Cooper is most certainly a notable video game series and this is a WP:SPINOUT of that article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep similarly reasoned as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of characters from a vg series is an appropriate spinout, though I agree cruft is a bit high here too. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 11:30, 6 September 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jak and Daxter characters[edit]

List of Jak and Daxter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. DJ Autagirl (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep similarly reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Spyro the Dragon. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate spinout for a vg series, and actually for a list of characters manages to avoid the typical pitfalls of fancruft. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 11:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – A valid WP:SPINOUT of Jak and Daxter. That said, the article would benefit from copy editing to reduce overly intricate detail and to improve sourcing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/ˈkærət/ (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

This is new to me - a page that disambiguates phonetically. But I can't see the point of it - articles are not referenced phonetically; disambiguation pages exist to disambiguate clashes in written form. In any case, the three similar sounding words - carat, caret and carrot - all have disambiguation pages, and they all already reference each other. Nothing links to this new page, nor is there any conceivable way it would. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page is at /ˈkærət/ (disambiguation); it's peculiar form is making it difficult to link to. However, attempts to rename it failed because the names were on the title blacklist. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The normal dab pages all link to each other (well two were linked to Carrot, but are now linked to Carrot (disambiguation)). If you can figure out how to type this in, chances are pretty good you already know the information anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless, and just silly, who would type a phonetic descriptiuon in the search window? Kraxler (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe someone who heard it? Siuenti (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, heard it and converted it into a correct phonetic description and found the keys (Alt+... sequence) to type it in? Like Johann Sebastian Bach who heard a piece of polyphonic music and then off-hand wrote up perfectly the whole score for all instruments by memory? Hmmm... Kraxler (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I were doing it, I'd find IPA for English and copy/paste from there. Siuenti (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This articles belongs in /ˌwɪkɨˈpiːdiə/, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 September 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. Don't usually close on one !vote but MichaelQSchmidt's proven GNG is met and as he says being unreferenced isn't a reason to delete. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Short Film Festival[edit]

Miami Short Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced for 5 years with no evidence of of notability. Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Being unsourced is a not a valid deletion rationale IF sources exist... and in looking I find numerous sources available which speak toward the festival in a more-than-trivial manner.[1][2] Time to improve, not delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:18, 5 September 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. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boy (novel)[edit]

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

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

I can't find references to support the notability of this book. King-Smith is a popular and prolific author, but I don't think he meets the standard that anyhting he writes is likely to be inherently notable. The topic here has been completely unreferenced for more than five years, and consists only of an in-universe plot summary. Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dick King-Smith, as my efforts to find reviews in reliable sources were markedly unsuccessful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK (4.The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country) as it appears on numerous school reading lists [3][4][5][6][7][8] and is taught in schools.[9][10] It has been used as one of the practice texts for the English Common Entrance Examination for year 6 students to move to senior school.[11] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding links 1, 3–7 (link 2 is giving me a 404 error): I think just because it appears in a recommended reading list does not mean it is actually the subject of instruction at a school. No one needs to read or examine the book just because it appears on the list. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I added two reviews I found in the article. I also found two potential reviews using Google Books, although I can't access their content: [12], [13]. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any reviews of the book (Booklist, Kirkus, School Library Journal). The "Emergency Librarian" link is not a review, it's a list of books in which this is one. That it is on school reading lists is interesting but doesn't confer notability. The "subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance. For a children's/young adult book I would expect at least Kirkus and SLJ. LaMona (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/reply sorry about st margarets prep link, i can't get it to go to the reading list now (it has been removed). Regarding a book appearing in school reading lists and whether that means they are studied, i don't know about other editors but with the school i attended, students were expected to read at least the minimum number of books, from the list, usually 2 or 3 for the short inter-term breaks and more for the summer (end-of-year) holidays. On return to school our teacher(s) then gave lessons based on the books read, with the students who had read the book giving a report (when we had been provided with a large reading list to choose from, teacher would conduct a 'vote' to decide which books we would study, it was fun forming a voting bloc with friends to ensure our favorite book(s) from the lists were chosen.) That is why i have included these reading lists.

With regards to not appearing in kirkus, pw and slj, as these are US reviewers, a lot of english child/ya authors may not be covered by them ("but coolabah, they have reviewed a lot of king-smith's books, just not this non-notable one." - Drat!!!:))

As for ""subject of instruction" means that the book has been studied, as in a literature class where you study and discuss Moby Dick, for instance.", as more experienced editors, could you please provide a wikilink to the discussion that covers this as i have been unable to find this in the WP:NBOOK talkpage (including its archives).

In addition, Warning humor alert!(?), i don't think many 5 or 6 year olds attend "literature class" or "discuss Moby Dick", although i did find this slj review of an adaption - "Youngsters may come away with a barebones skeleton of Melville's classic tale, but the meat, and indeed the heart, of the story remain unfathomable to this audience.ALuann Toth, School Library Journal".[14] (sorry don't have slj access so had to use amazon).

Of course, i will probably defer eventually(?)(with much gritting of teeth and sheathing of claws.....).

ps. you haven't really addressed the two references about it being taught in schools and being used for year 6 ceestudy, these alone should bring it over the notability line.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing in this article ABOUT the book aside from the summary of the plot. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Articles_that_are_plot_summaries. That is, there are only two short statements by third parties about the book. I don't see evidence that it is "taught in schools" - which isn't the same as being on reading lists. And, yes, there is an extract (about one page) in the CEE document, but that document includes extracts from about two dozen works. Not itself enough for notability, IMO. It suffices that the author has a page here, and that lists his books. I note that there are other books by this author (e.g. The_Queen's_Nose) that have WP pages that are not appropriately referenced. (That one has only one third-party reference, although it may pass GNG because of the TV show.) LaMona (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou LaMona for explaining things (i thought i was on a slippery slope:)), have changed to Delete, agree that the article would need to have stronger references to be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a review. Shirley Lewis is expressing an opinion about the book, hence she's reviewing it. Being part of a list doesn't preclude it from being a review. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single sentence. So whether or not it is a review is moot - a single sentence is not sufficient to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I added three more reviews, all of which are non-trivial, to the article. The Junior Bookshelf review article is 303 words long, the Magpies review article is 248 words, and the Books for Your Children review article is 112 words. I've really got to thank my university for their large collection of online databases. If anyone wants to see the reviews, I can send an email with their content. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thanks to the additional reviews by @Fearstreetsaga: I am definitely favouring keep, and seeing the value of the additional sources. Sadads (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have struck out my delete as article now appears to have strong enough citations to keep (but as not online they are difficult to verify, although this does not reduce their notableness(?)) :)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 4 September 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. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed VEVO videos[edit]

List of most viewed VEVO videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. This article appears to extend from List of most viewed YouTube videos, but only using videos that are on the VEVO service (which by the licensing between VEVO and YouTube , will end up on YouTube within a few days). PAtterns of behavior at the YouTube list show the frequent push of IPs and infrequent editors to push specific videos up the list as soon as positions change instead of at the ~5 day interval the list is updated with. This feels like a means to get around the enforcement of that 5 day interval and still promote favorite videos. In addition, while I can readily find sources (beyond YouTube) that show interest in tracking the most watched YT videos, that's not the case with VEVO, and I would believe this is due to the fact that nearly everyone associates VEVO with YouTube. MASEM (t) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The nominator explained why, and I agree with him. A list for YouTube is fine, but not for VEVO. Merge to Vevo article. TVShowFan122 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree with both of you guys.

Reasons why this article should not be deleted:

1. I worked for 4 long, hard hours making this.
2. I was not tracking, i found the resources.
3. Not everyone associates VEVO with YouTube.
4. TVShowFan122, there is already an article on the most viewed YouTube videos so I decided to make something different.

Randomstuff207 w (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Randomstuff207 w, I know there is a list for YouTube, I frequently edit it. However, while I believe the article on Vevo should stay on Wikipedia, a specific article on its most viewed videos is just not needed. Maybe make it a section of the Vevo article then? TVShowFan122 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Not all the viral YouTube videos are on Vevo: Gangnam Style isn't - nor is Charlie bit my finger, or Wheels on the Bus. Unreal7 (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is a different subset of videos, my basic point is that we can point to third-party sources that show interest in tracking the top YT video, but nothing of the same ilk for Vevo. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: VEVO and YouTube are separate sites, the view counts for VEVO and YouTube are different and not all YouTtube videos are on VEVO. MLA2000 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram and Bashir[edit]

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

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

This orphaned article doesn't have much information and has stayed the same since May 2007, and my searches found nothing good with one of the best links being Allmusic. At best, this would be best mentioned elsewhere (but the only linking article is "List of Kurds") as they aren't independently notable, also considering they only ever released one album. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as insufficiently notable musicians. Both fail GNG. Quis separabit? 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Except by accident, we have no practical way of finding sources for topics like this. If the original editor doesn't give them, we're stuck. The article was added in May2007, and May 2007 was when it should have been dealt with. Instead, various editors have been doing touch-ups, without looking at the problem. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails wp:gng Pokerkiller (talk) 21:20, 10 September 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 clear. One keep argument argues there's sourcing, but this point is disagreed with. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Arnet[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a person whose most substantive claims of notability are as the executive director of an organization of exclusively local notability, as a former member of a school board, and as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election to the state legislature. All of the reliable sourcing here is sitting on the latter two claims, both of which fail to satisfy WP:NPOL — school board trustees don't get articles just for being school board trustees, and candidates for office don't get articles just for being candidates. Which means that her eligibility for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on "executive director of the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania", but that claim is supported exclusively by primary sources that cannot contribute toward deeming her notable, with not a single citation in the entire article to a reliable and independent source that's covering her in that context. While this was kept in an earlier AFD discussion in 2008, Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules are very different now than they were at that time — we're a lot stricter now (especially when it comes to a WP:BLP) about what constitutes legitimate sourcing and what is or isn't a suitable claim of notability, and this doesn't meet 2015-vintage content standards. I'm willing to withdraw this if reliable sourcing can be piled properly onto her directorship of a non-profit organization, but if that can't be done then she has to win the state-level election later this year before she's eligible for an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if things change in the future. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but the article has much cruft, needs more references, and needs severe pruning. Sources can be found here. Meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely local coverage of her in the context of either the school board or her candidacy for an office she doesn't hold yet doesn't count toward WP:GNG at all — it falls under WP:ROUTINE, because all school board trustees and all candidates for office always generate local coverage. So such coverage does not demonstrate notability — for coverage of a school board trustee or a non-elected candidate for higher office to flip from ROUTINE to GNG, it has to nationalize or internationalize. The only ways she can get over GNG are to either (a) have generated coverage specifically in the context of her directorship of the Women and Girls Foundation, or (b) win the state senate seat when that election happens. But A hasn't been demonstrated here, and B is still in the future and thus can't be met today without violating WP:CRYSTAL. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a host for election campaigns, so far only very strictly local coverage, and quite trivial Kraxler (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails wp:bio, all news coverage is trivial and local in nature. Pokerkiller (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN at this time. Could have been redirected to an article about the 2016 Pennsylvania elections, but such an article does not appear to exist yet. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 11 September 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. No consensus to delete after stubbing.  Sandstein  09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence[edit]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was subject to a deletion discussion in February 2014, which attracted very little participation, and was closed as "no consensus", but there were really no arguments for keeping which stand up to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the creator of the article and an IP editor both claimed notability on the basis of the recording being on a notable label, but notability is not inherited from association with a notable company. Neither in the article's cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - those sources are ... borderline at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now keep per Torchiest. Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, they are simply blogs, wordpress sites, event listings or fan made sites with no editorial oversight. Me5000 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think a couple of the current sources are decent, and I've found the following additional sources:
  • Preview: Cancer survivor, Jim Semonik, reinforces industrial music revival
  • Interview: REIN[FORCED] with Jim Semonik
  • Jim Semonik: Cancer Crusher, Electronic Savior
  • Local man's music helps cancer patients (paywalled) pdf copy
  • Jim Semonik promotes the local industrial scene, despite battling cancer

  That last source is more about Jim Semonik, who appears notable enough to have his own article. A few other options would be to create that article and redirect this to it, or create a single new article for the entire series, rather than trying to have separate articles for each volume. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The last option, I suggest - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Torchiest, David Gerard, I just wrote up the worst stub in the world using three of the listed sources. Let me know what you all think. JamesBWatson, Me5000, you too--I'm inclined to close this as merge if that's cool with y'all. Oh, please improve the article while you're at it. :) Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 September 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.  Sandstein  09:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madoka Ozawa[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail pornbio and gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable, famous, popular, historical figure in that Japanese industry...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And reliable sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG with the following Chinese sources: [15], [16], as well as the Japan Sugoi source cited in the article. The article is well-referenced to sources such as JMDB for information about filmography. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell us what the hinews.cn article is about and how the source meets RS? Its in Mandarin, were you able to read it before citing it authoritatively as an RS?
  • JMDB isn't a RS and it damages your assessment of the sourcing to assert that it is.
  • Please tell me how this from Japan Sugoi is a RS or sufficient to pass GNG. It has no by-line and doesn't look like a proper RS. In fact, the site runs on wordpress and is licensed under t CC-SA 3.0 which almost certainly means its a personal website.
  • Taipai Times is already there and might be one source but you need multiple sources to pass GNG
  • So, in summary, one possible source and that's it unless you can explain the hinews.cn one better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The hinews source says that she was active in the industry from 1997 to 2004 and that she starred in some classic Hong Kong Category III (mainstream) films. (WP:PORNBIO #3 may apply.) It also has some cruft about her appearance and demeanor, and calls her "Ai Iijima's successor." Then there's some praise of her acting skill. It concludes by mentioning that she became a professional writer after her retirement from pornography.
• JMDB is perfectly fine for basic filmography information. I wasn't claiming it should count toward notability.
• You are right about Japan Sugoi. My mistake. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:PORNBIO, and the sources in the article and posted here appear to be tabloid pieces, not in-depth coverage, thus also fails GNG. Kraxler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sammy1339. While most of the current references appear to be primary sources, both Hainan Daily and Taipei Times are reliable secondary sources and the relevant articles are non-tabloidesque, significant coverage, enough for a claim of notability and also enough to start building a decent start-class article. Also possibly passes PORNBIO#3 per Sammy1339's analysis. Cavarrone 19:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. a much closer case than usual, but ultimately the RS coverage just isn't sufficient. The Taipei Times piece can't be dismissed out of hand, but it's more about her agent's efforts to generate publicity than the subject herself, and contains little or no significant biographical content. In the absence of a solid claim that the subject at least approaches PORNBIO requirements, and given that none of the supposed next career steps mentioned in the Taipei Times piece seem to have panned out, I don't think the case for notability has been made. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Times article mentions her agent, but indeed it is 100% about Ozawa. Among other things, the article refers to "the phenomenon that a former porn star from Japan could create such huge buzz among Taiwanese audiences and whether there is a change in social values about sex", her "tremendous popularity" and her "received overwhelming public adulation and huge media coverage" which suggests more coverage is available in native language. This article alone is a solid claim of notability for the subject IMO. Cavarrone 17:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But where is there any other evidence of that "huge media coverage"? I don't even see any other coverage in Taipei Times. This isn't the sort of article where notability is based on a single potentially reliable source, when that source makes claims that should be easy to corroborate -- but aren't. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they are hard because we are talking about Taiwanese news sources (not the easier to find and check) and because the article is not a week old but dates back to 2003! Yet the article underlines the media coverage even in the summary "... a string of public appearances that won her massive media coverage..." to the point of questioning a professor at the National Central University "whether there is a change in social values about sex". Except Ozawa's agent is so powerful to force then Magistrate Lee Chu-feng to publicly welcome the actress' visit and to declare her presence could boost tourism on his region, I see some notability here. And on the other hand, Hainan Daily is fine in explaining why she is not just a random adult actress but one of the notable ones. Cavarrone 19:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Maybe" not. The China Post has online archives going back to the relevant data, and it doesn't turn up any result for the article subject's name. Same for Taiwan News. The Hainan Daily piece is just standard website clickbait, and is so superficial that just about its only biographical content is that, after she retired from porn she started a blog. There's just not enough here to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not or maybe yes. Online archives are often incomplete, I know it because I regularly use online archives of news sources like Variety or Corriere della Sera and they go back even older, but the older you go less things you'll find. Eg. searching for a very common word such as "actress" in a January 2003-January 2004 period, The China Post returnes only 42 matches while the word "film" gives only 68 results, i.e. irrealistic numbers for a complete archive. To make a comparison, if you makes the same search for the year 2014, you'll find 284 matches for "actress" and 783 matches for "film". Taiwan News is apparently even worst, over the same period of time it gives exactly 0 matches for both the words. I am not saying I am nearly certain these newspapers covered the actress back in 2003, but I am reasonably certain the Taipei Times piece is not deceptive when writing about Ozawa's media impact. About Hainan Daily, if the above Sammy1339's summary is correct, it says more than the blog thing. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree this time (while I think both of us agree it's a borderline case). Cavarrone 05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are right about that but the reason why on-line databases get weaker with age is that the people uploading to digital conentrate on the stuff that is really important. So not making the cut probably supports the deletion case. I respect the view you have put forward but have you considered that this is a BLP and that we are expected to retain on evidence of sources not the difficulty of finding old ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Kapdi[edit]

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

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

The best results my searches found were this and this so I'm not entirely sure if he's solidly independently notable (article has existed since October 2008 with hardly any further improvement). SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vaguely written and lacking in sources even to be verifiable let alone to pass notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO. I found these two; [17] - short news article about his involvement in educational awareness campaign and this [18] - A Ten Year Plan For the Total Education of Indian Muslims which is about a lecture he gave at an education conference he was involved with, but a lot more is required. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 11 September 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. Regarding redirect, the person who removed the redirect and expanded the article indicated that the two terms Shanku and Shankha do not mean the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanku[edit]

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

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

This page has zero sources listed and no other reliable sources that I can find. Without any reputable secondary sources, it should not exist on Wikipedia. BurritoSlayer (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was not even able to conclusively confirm that a 4th-century government minister named "Shanku" even existed. It should be rather easy to at least verify the existence of someone who was purportedly so important. Therefore, a seemingly obscure person whose very existence is difficult to confirm (using reliable sources) certainly fails GNG. --Biblioworm 00:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but, BurritoSlayer (I find that username amusing, BTW) and Biblioworm, what about restoring the original redirect instead of simply deleting? (I'm not familiar with Shankha but I'm assuming it's still a plausible search term) SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Spyro the Dragon[edit]

Characters of Spyro the Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is full of WP:FANCRUFT, with virtually no real world information to balance things out. Also, only four references are cited. DJ Autagirl (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk Gaming4JC (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appropriate WP:SPINOUT for notable game series. Deficiency of sources and excessive fancruft is not adequate to amount to deletion here when they are fixable with trimming and reinforcing citation, and in my uninitiated (towards classic PlayStation franchises) opinion it is in an acceptable place. Similar arguments can be (and have been, by others) made at the same nom's other AfDs for Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper and Conker series character lists. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Spyro the Dragon is most certainly a notable video game series and this is a WP:SPINOUT of that article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appropriate spinout of long-running game series. Does have some fancruft problems but that's fixable. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. I agree with the spinout claimed by the other supporters of this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a SPINOUT of a popular video game series. Do we need to say this multiple times? --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 11:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Annie Pope[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. This is the only non-trivial mention in a reliable source, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR standards of notability. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Krishna[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Subject fails WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR with only trivial/no mention in cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Promotional article about a non-notable actress, undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 02:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as my searches found nothing good to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 10 September 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 keep, nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unto the Dusk[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. Film fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, and is only mentioned in passing as example of recent independent films in the three cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Sajin Baabu" "Unto the Dusk"

• Keep per meeting WP:NF. Issues with failings of its authors aside, the film itself is covered and more more thoroughly in sources not being used, and thus the topic merits inclusion. For examples, we have Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express (1), New Indian Express (2), New Indian Express (3), The Hindu, and others. Shame on the COI and sockfarm, but under WP:NRVE we have no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Deal with the bad guys, fine... but save and expand the notable topic accordingly, for our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Thanks for finding the sources User:MichaelQSchmidt. Can you update/clean-up the article with the sources you found? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just got home, but will be happy to do so. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Duracell[edit]

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

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

This article seems to fail all notability requirements - the claims of notability are all underwhelming (worked on non-notable radio stations; placed at 4th and 57th in two polls conducted by non-notable organisations; released a white-label test-pressing record which charted on a non-notable single store chart; formed a partnership with a non-notable brand) and, critically, I can find nothing in reliable third-party sources about her. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underwhelming is a matter of opinion; I didn't see underwhelming in the guidelines.

• Click the "books" tab, she has been written about.

• If HMV is non-notable; why does it have its own Wikipedia page?

• If the 4th place poll position was from a non-notable organisation, why was it mentioned in the guardian? http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/dec/09/10-classic-club-nights

and why did the no1 uk garage DJ collect his award?.

I would like a little more info before you delete, and it gets recreated.

Yas at NewMatter (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; fails general notability and WP:MUSIC. Searches for "Lady Duracell" returned almost no results; searches for "Queen of Funk" return results about other people. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can't really judge re. notability rules, but there is a definite new-establishment bias to all this, as there is with Wikipedia's coverage of pop and rock music generally. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean? We look at print sources as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:48, 11 September 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rind (Baloch tribe)[edit]

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

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Found sources. Brustopher (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination thanks to Brustopher's hard work convincing me. Thank you. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unni Maya (singer)[edit]

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

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

Not convinced that this singer is notable; note that playback singers are effectively in the background (as they create background music). None of the sources are actually about her. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. The sources in the article are all poor quality; some don't even mention the subject (eg, ibtimes); and even the best of the bunch, is this article in a local supplement of the Indian Express newspaper that only talks of her as one of the city school-kids who did well at a inter-school cultural festival. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Two of the films in her filmography have wikipedia articles created by the same set of editors, and the articles are currently nominated for deletion. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Abecedare. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems only to be a backgruond singer, thus without notability. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While I don't believe this singer is notable enough yet, playback singers in South Asian cinema are generally both notable and famous (most are much better known than the corresponding film directors), receiving attention from both film and popular music fans. See Lata Mangeshkar for one of the more prominent example; wikipedia has articles for several hundred more. Abecedare (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakashvani (film)[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. None of the cited sources are reliable, and as an upcoming movie the subject fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Aakashvani film" "Khais Millen" "Vijay Babu" "Kavya Madhavan"

• Soft delete until filming is confirmed. Article's current sourcing is irrelevant and addressable when WP:BEFORE finds the topic spoken of in more-than-trivial detail in reliable sources. As soon as we have filming confirmed, the topic should be welcomed back and expanded accordingly per proper sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:30, 6 September 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheStart[edit]

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

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was previously deleted following a PROD, and then re-created, so I am bringing it here for discussion. The cited references are: a page at allmusic, a page on the web site of a company publishing the band's records, a dead link, and a page on a web site which allows "user-contributed text". I have not found any other evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing needs improvement, but they've released several albums under three notable independent labels. (WP:BAND, #5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanzzibar (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I also considered weak keep but the main issue is there's no good third-party coverage and my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The group has coverage from sources such as Allmusic, and it seems to be notable enough. Their 2004 release was even highlighted by the music publication as an 'Album Pick'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to a lot on allmusic there is

Mauet, Sarah (15 December 2005), "TheStart help jump start new wave revival", The Arizona Daily Star

Thorne, Evan (12 April 2002), "Aimee Echo the highlight on The Start's 'Shakedown!'", Chicago Daily Herald

Iwasaki, Scott (2 November 2001), "Fresh start suits Start just fine", Deseret News

and a short review in

"Not quite the beginning", Mosman Daily, 19 February 2004

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 10 September 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. Copyvio. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COSMOLOGY. DIFFERENCES AND HYERARCHY OF INFINITE SETS BY THE EXAMPLE OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACES AND SOME RELATIONS OF THESE SPACES, AND A BIT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE[edit]

COSMOLOGY. DIFFERENCES AND HYERARCHY OF INFINITE SETS BY THE EXAMPLE OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL SPACES AND SOME RELATIONS OF THESE SPACES, AND A BIT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTWEBHOST. PROD removed by article creator. Everymorning (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India as an emerging superpower[edit]

India as an emerging superpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article reads like an essay. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 16:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The article mostly presents referenced facts, the perceived essayness of the article is something that can be dealt with by editing and is thus not good grounds for deletion. The subject itself is easily shown to be notable, there are many books on the subject;
  • Reimagining India: Unlocking the Potential of Asia’s Next Superpower
  • India: Emerging Power
  • Indian Economic Superpower: Fiction Or Future?
  • Globalisation and Emerging India
  • India, China and Globalization: The Emerging Superpowers and the Future of Economic Development

At least two books consist of collections of scholarly papers on the subject;

• India as an Emerging Super Power: Possibilities and Obstacles (may be self published)
• India's Human Security: Lost Debates, Forgotten People, Intractable Challenges (papers from a conference titled Invisible India: Hidden Risks within an Emerging Superpower)

More scholarly interest in the subject can be found;

• "A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of India as an Emerging World Power", India Review
• "The emerging role of India in international business", Business Horizons ("The sweeping reforms promise to make India an economic superpower")

Far from deleting this, we should be asking ourselves why has it taken until now to post such an article? SpinningSpark 22:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Ultimately, the topic passes WP:N, and concerns about essay-like content can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 5 September 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 keep, nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palakkattu Madhavan[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report and SPI report. This article cites no independent reliable source, and given that it was created the editors involved, I don't believe any such source exists. Article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Abecedare (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, instead of assuming a source doesn't exist because of a users supposed COI, you could have a look for the source yourself and remove all doubt. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Palakkattu Madhavan" "M Chandramohan" "Kuruvanna Basheer" Vivekh "Sonia Agarwal"

• STRONG Keep per meeting WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. Sorry Abecedare... but my own due diligence shows the topic has lots of coverage in reliable sources. I quickly found Sify, Times of India, International Business Times (1), Bangalore Mirror, Deccan Chronicle, International Business Times (2), and many others. Sheesh... please look first, dude. The article currently lacking decent sourcing through a possible or intentional ineptitude of its author(s) is correctable. We might punish the socks, but we do not punish our readers when dealing with misguided contributors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Thanks for finding the sources User:MichaelQSchmidt. The film indeed seems notable enough. Would you mind adding the sources you found to the article? A side note: this is not a simple case of misguided or socking editors; but of undisclosed paid advocacy. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just got home, but will be happy to do so. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobutaka Shinomiya[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Consensus from previous AfDs shows that ambassadors are not inherently notable. All I could find was one article in Portuguese and another in Spanish merely confirming he's an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with caveat Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Sources in article contain only bare mentions or are not independent. I will reconsider if some independent coverage for his awards can be found. While the awards may allow him to pass WP:ANYBIO passing a specific notability criteria allows but does not require an article to be kept. There must be enough other coverage to justify and sustain an article and in this case there does not appear to be. Jbh^Talk 13:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons stated by nominator. Also note that there is an article on the Spanish award, including a list of recipients. Shinomiya is not on the list. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smrithi[edit]

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

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

This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with direct conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see ANI report. This article cites no independent reliable source, and given that it was created by editors involved with the movie, I don't believe any such source exists. Article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per nomination and WP:GNG. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Sorry, but the nominators' empty statement "I don't believe any such source exists" is meaningless when due diligence find the topic is sourcable... however, what is a pertinent issue is that it simply does not have enough available to meet WP:GNG or WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:11, 6 September 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 as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilize (film)[edit]

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

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

This seems to be a film promoting anti-cellphone nonsense. It has only one source, which is actually just the trailer. And the trailer starts with an impassioned piece to camera, apparently presented as a factual news report - the presenter is Stephen Colbert. The makers seemingly got trolled. It claims many notable "stars" but on inspection this turns out to be mainly archive footage. There's no real evidence of any importance at all. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 16:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This has been to AfD before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation, and was part of an organized campaign to add Kevin Kunze to Wikipedia. I'll compare the two versions and see if anything new was added. I knew that this film seemed familiar. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And it was moved to the userspace at this AfD, where it was called "Disconnect". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't have anything new and it actually looks like this was an attempt to get around the deletion of the article's deletion last year. I'll speedy this and salt both entries. The original editor has already been blocked for copyvio issues, otherwise I'd warn them against pulling this cheap trick. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Nepal Remittance Facility Scheme[edit]

Indo-Nepal Remittance Facility Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Current article has two references, both to banking sites which simply explain the procedure. The procedure exists, but a News search turned up zero. Other searches turn up hits, since it is a term, but nothing substantial to denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established. At first I thought that maybe this could be merged to India-Nepal relations, but on second thought it does not seem important enough even for that.--Staberinde (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suppose unless it can actually mentioned elsewhere as my searches found nothing explicitly better aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greece in the OGAE Song Contest[edit]

Greece in the OGAE Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no such event as the OGAE Song Contest. The only OGAE event in existence are OGAE Second Chance Contest and OGAE Video Contest, neither of which has Greece ever won, nor entered with the suggested participants that the nominated article is suggesting. Also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 14#On Notability of OGAE Contests (which an editor pointed out WP:WHYN) noted that OGAE events are not notable enough to warrant individual contest or country articles per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:N. Wes Mouse ✒ 13:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (engage) @ 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator rationale. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fabricated article. I am Greek and I never even heard of such a contest. Dimadick (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think it is a good faith mistake by the creator. Anyway, not notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 6 September 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 Space Elevator. There's no clear consensus here for any specific action, but looking at it from the other direction, if there is consensus for anything, it's for "do not delete".

From a headcount point of view, there's support for either keep or merge, but (with the exception of DGG, who makes a reasonable point), all of the keep supporters are essentially saying WP:ILIKEIT, and the references produced don't appear to meet our guidelines. Even the proposer suggested that a merge might be the right thing, and one of the remaining keeps is just what he said, where the referent has in turn changed their opinion from keep to merge. So, it seems the consensus, such as it is, is for merge.

But that gets us down to what the merge target should be. Both Space Elevator and Space elevator competitions were mentioned. I don't see any strong argument favoring one over the other, so I'll just leave it up to whoever completes the merge to use their best judgement (which might be a combination of the two). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Elevator Consortium[edit]

International Space Elevator Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Tagged for notability a while ago, but tag was removed without providing evidence. A search turns up our article Space elevator competitions so probably merge into that. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:ORG due to the following reliable sources: Pacific Standard CNN CNBC Space.com Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC) I have changed my mind and now think that a merge as proposed by RockMagnetist would be better, the coverage of this organization does not appear to meet ORGDEPTH. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Everymorning says. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I improved the article after attending the 2015 conference in Seattle at the Museum of Flight. I was impressed by the technical sophistication of the material presented there (My qualifications are that I'm an inventor with over 30 patents granted and a Principal Engineer in a very large and well-know software organization). I met people who had traveled from Japan and Europe to attend, people who currently have positions in reputable and well-known space agencies, and notable inventors and authors.

Isecscribe (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with space elevator. None of the sources meet the depth of coverage criterion for WP:ORG. For example, several sources simply include the Consortium as part of a list. Putting together the four sources mentioned by @Everymorning, all we can learn about the Consortium is that it has an annual meeting and its president is Peter Swain. The articles mainly cover the subject of space elevators, so why not merge? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I find your argument convincing and so have struck out my previous !vote. Everymorning (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely Keep. Notability is a requirement for the subject. It's not a measure of how well an article conveys that notability. When an article on a notable subject doesn't convey that notability well, the fix is to improve it so the notability is conveyed better. ISEC is absolutely notable. They are the center of the space elevator world. They make it all happen. In the modern era (post Edwards, post X-Prize), they are the keepers of the very definition of what a space elevator is. They're actively engaged in improving all aspects of design. They coordinate efforts of people all around the globe. No-way, no-how should ISEC be deleted for notability. Neither should it be merged, because ISEC is a separate and separately notable subject. Skyway (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The thing I forgot to mention in my vote was that I searched diligently for better sources and couldn't find any (and clearly @Everymorning did some searching as well). Anyone claiming that the subject is notable should produce the sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! It's just a stub article, but it has twelve(!) sources. Some of them support other stated facts and don't add to the showing of notability, but a bunch of them do support notability. You should have searched on the page itself. Your own failures and inabilities are not a reflection on the notability of any subject. :-) Skyway (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (leaning toward keep) - The existing refs are hopeless - all blogs, self published, or infotainment. In its current state it fails to demonstrate notability through reliable secondary sources. That said, a google news search turns up plenty of hits, several of which seem fairly decent. While none of them appear to be explicitly about ISEC, many quote extensively from ISEC, and some have done interviews with representatives of ISEC (this one from CNBC is fairly good]. This suggests ISEC is considered an authority on space elevator construction/economics. Does that make ISEC notable? As a moderate WP:inclusionist, I'm inclined to say yes. Definitely needs to be tagged with refimprove though.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yeti Hunter: Your search is the same one we have all done, and some of the sources (including the CNBC one) have already been discussed. Most of them would be useful sources for Space elevator, but only use the head of the International Space Elevator Consortium as a source for a quote - one of the examples of trivial coverage that are explicitly mentioned in WP:ORGDEPTH. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist:, apologies, I failed to check Everymorning's struck-out refs before doing my own search. WP:ORGDEPTH defines trivial mentions as, for example, a list of meeting times or sporting results, or (relevantly for this discussion) simply identifying a quoted person as belonging to the organisation. Several of these sources (CNBC, Space.com, possibly CNN) are more than mere mentioning, and describe what the ISEC is and what it does. Not much more, I'll grant, but it counts as a non-trivial mention, which gets it over the line of WP:GNG. ORGDEPTH defers to GNG.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my doubts. For example, the relevant text in the CNBC article says

That's the goal of the International Space Elevator Consortium, a group of scientists, aerospace engineers and other big thinkers devoted to the development of "inexpensive, safe, routine and efficient access to space." They believe the answer lies in suspending a very long—and very strong—elevator cable from the surface of the Earth to a point thousands of miles in space.

Which is just a long-winded way of saying that the International Space Elevator Consortium is devoted to developing a space elevator. This CNN article has just a bare mention - is there another one? However, there is good coverage of some of their conferences, like this Space.com article. Maybe that's enough. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable by definition: few if any of the citations are to conventionally defined reliable sources. Basically, the argument is that it is notable because they say that it is notable. 77.99.195.233 (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the definition. Saying "it's notable" isn't at all the same as saying "the article adequately demonstrates the subject's notability". All notable subjects are notable in-and-of-themselves, and saying "it's notable" is never intended to be the proof, it's simply talking about the subject's notability. Again, it's the subject that must be notable. It's the article that must (eventually) give evidence of notability. But if an article doesn't do that yet, it doesn't at all mean the subject isn't notable "by definition". If a subject is notable for continued inclusion, it's just a matter of whether the article's included references are strong enough for the article to demonstrate the subject's notability (as our refs indeed are). In fact, an article doesn't even need to give evidence of the subject's notability, there only needs to be the expectation that strong enough supporting refs can be found! Skyway (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyway, it would be more helpful if could link to specific sources that you feel establish the verifiable notability of the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyway: Skyway, the refs currently in the article are NOT good enough. The general notability guideline requires more than blogs, self published sources and trivial mentions. Most editors here have attempted to find better, reliable refs. Some have been found which lend support to notability, but it remains a borderline case. Your argument boils down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES - I tend to agree in this case, but it is not my or anyone else's job to track down better sources for interested editors. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yes. It is a judgement call as to whether an article's current sources are adequate to demonstrate a subject's notability. I can give you that. Although, the requirement for includability is that the subject be notable, not that its article demonstrate it. I only offer the idea (that the current sources are adequate) as an extra-added-bonus on top of the already good notability of the subject, which is the only actual requirement. It does certainly help if some sources in an article are good for demonstrating notability. I happen to think they do that well. Even if they don't however, it's quite permissible to allow for better sources to be found and added in due course. Skyway (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyway: you are relatively new to deletion debates, and you need to understand how they work. It's true that the article does not have to demonstrate notability, but notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, and in an AfD you need to demonstrate that those sources exist. Your arguments for notability are based on your understanding of the importance of the organization, and you may be right; but in this forum you need to prove it with sources. And those sources need to be reliable, published sources that are independent of the subject and provide significant coverage (please read Identifying reliable sources carefully). A few of us have tried to find those sources and have not succeeded. So unless you can get more specific and show us what sources establish reliability and how, your arguments will carry no weight with the closing admin. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? What "closing admin"? This is just an excuse for you to go round-and-around. There's no upswell to delete at all. This effort had to be "relisted" twice to get anyone else to care, and even then few care, and nobody was recruited the second time. The subject has always been plenty notable enough, and even though it's not strictly necessary, the article has quite a few good independent notability-demonstrating sources that have been listed for some time. Even more have been mentioned on this page. Skyway (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YH, you may be overstating our resistance to blogs as a source. "Blog" is a publishing format; that it is used most frequently for self-published material does not bar us from including other blogs. We freely accept blogs from major news sources. So if you're applying the concern to space.com, we need to look at whether it's self-published (it's not), whether it has editorial oversight (I wasn't able to quickly find it, but knowing the publisher, probably) and whether it's a source of significance (quite possibly.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a close call to me. If it is accepted as a reliable source, does an article about a conference hosted by ISEC count as an article about ISEC itself or about the ideas that were discussed in the conference? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one example of news organizations relying on ISEC. I added the numerous examples of that mentioned here (in the AfD) to the article. Skyway (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it's not necessary to answer this question if the article is merged. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Space Elevator would be off-topic for that article. Skyway (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]