< 5 September	7 September >

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 01:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 IR Tanger season[edit]

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

Just a table of results from the the IR Tangier table. Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Botola is a FPL per WP:FPL. Article needs improving, not deleting. YoungIreland (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - while the article passes WP:NSEASONS by being about a team in a "top [i.e. fully-professional] professional league", that very same notability guideline then goes on to say "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." I suggest we therefore delete or redirect. Giant Snowman 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NSEASONS. The season was all of 24-hours old when this article was nominated for deletion. Needs improvement, not deletion. If by the end of the season the article is still mostly missing, then no prejudice on relisting. Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a season article on a club in a fully professional league, meets WP:NSEASONS. Needs significant improvement to be useful, but this is not an inherent reason to delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is the tradition that we keep season articles for top leagues, it shouldn't matter if the particular article in question is not properly developed (yet) Jacona (talk) 02:16, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shanee Banerjee[edit]

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

May not be notable enough for an article. Past edits have bordered on promotional with few or unreliable sources. clpo13_(talk) 22:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly fails our notability threshold, couldn't find a single reliable source. All of the three source present in the article are either user generated (Gomolo.com) which is definitely not reliable and in the others, I can see just passing mentions, they are about the film in which the actor has debuted. They are not reliable enough, though. Anyhow, the subject fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG and have to go miles before the subject pass WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter 06:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same findings as Jim. Hopefully a case of WP: TOOSOON and he can be resubmitted with better notability in the future. Alaynestone (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete rather than move to the film's article as it's not even known if he'll have a lasting and best known impact with that film and there's vulnerability to recreation; my searches found nothing good and that's not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to be the case of WP:TOOSOON and also fails the WP:NACTOR. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:29, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Moir[edit]

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

Non-notable local journalist and blogger. No references that show notability. Fails WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There sure are a lot of people named Andrew Moir. However, my searches don't turn up any compelling evidence of notability for this one. It's possible that I missed something in the tidal wave of seemingly unrelated results or that my subsequent searches were too strict. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - I agree and overall the sourcing is simply not good enough to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like he's only somewhat notable, and the reliable source coverage that we need doesn't appear to exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:00, 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 redirect to Human tooth development. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odontogenic[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Odonotogenesis or Tooth#Development. This could be done boldly rather than through an AfD process. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human tooth development, seems like the best thing to do pretty clearly

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Office Supply[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Website is dead, has been tagged as having no (other) sources for 7 years. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 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. Plenty of people asserting that usable sources exist, but nobody has produced them. Those sources which were produced were refuted as not meeting the requirements of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Tanaka[edit]

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

None of the sources are RS so fails GNG and no evidence passes PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Has anyone seen the infobox image ? ... Her eyes really stand out!, Nice knockers but they're not a free ticket to an article which is rather quite a shame!, Sorry back on topic~~ clearly fails PORNBIO & GNG, I'm surprised I haven't !voted Keep actually.... –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree that there are no RS; see DMM.com. I worked at a naval hospital for 11 years, and I can hold my own in the swearing department, thank you very much. But I am taken aback that you would make a sexist remark, @Davey, at an AfD discussion; please STOP. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The DMM.com page is quite obviously not an independent, reliable source; it is, instead, a vendor page offering Tanaka's porn videos for sale/download. Many thoroughly non-notable self-published writers have similar pages on Amazon, and they do absolutely nothing to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is enough coverage in Japanese sources and news outlets to warrant inclusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has coverage of reliable secondary sources that passes WP:GNG. As mentioned above, it appears that DMM.com is sufficient enough. JAGUAR 16:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DMM is a vendor site offering Tanaka's videos for sale as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz points out above. The coverage is neither independent nor substantial. Just a catalog of available videos. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the sources in the article are not necessarily the best, there are others that can be used (see Google books and general i'net searches). To me that shows the lady is notable enough as far as the reliable sources go. – SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat You really need to cite your sources for your comment to have any validity. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are several links at the top, following the words "Fins sources". I suggest you take the basic step of clicking on them and doing some basic research. My comments have as much validity as they always do, and I care not one jot whether your inability to find basic information means you are unable to verify the, or not. I've also made a basic media search on the NexisLexis news database and found several other searches, and no, I won't cite the, either – you'll have to AGF, which seems to be in short supply here. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unevidenced assertion then. I'm sure the closing admin will give this the weight is deserves. I have never seen an argument before where asking someone to cite sources is rebuffed with demands to agf. Seems an assumption of BF on your part maybe. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks – I've told you where to find the information. Do some basic research like the rest of us. The closing admin may well take into account your bludgeoning of comments left by good faith editors and your inability to do some basic searches and your lack of judgement in opening an AfD where one doesn't need to be opened. – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of your demanding I AGF while you are uncivil to me is not lost but in fact I made two comments in this discussion politely asking users to cite the sources they are relying on. Maybe you should AGF yourself? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat, we can't tell whether those sources are reliable or not until we open the pages and observe them. As it stands, they're just uncertain. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks to me (although I may be wrong), that she's been mentioned multiple times in reliable sources (such as her name being a part of Google News searches of her name, where it's clearly about her and not someone similarly named). This article that we have now is far from the best. However, she appears to be somewhat notable at least. I'm deliberately choosing not to comment on the above back-and-forth. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeWithMarkets mentions do not meet the GNG. Which sources do you think meet the criteria for having multiple detailed reliable secondary sources? I couldn't find any and neither could users experienced in porn deletion discussions. I'm also struggling to find the policy on WP:Somewhat notable. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've moved much of what is not about the notability of this article to the talk page, any further comments about "puerile" comments can be made there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This certainly isn't going to go down as one of the better-argued XFD discussions. A few points should be clear, however. First, this BLP includes no significant reliable sources. The most frequently cited source, DMM, is a vendor page, and does nothing to establish notability. Other vendor pages cited include the "AV Idol Directory", "CD Japan", Scoreland, Saibunkan, and the unsurprisingly-not-cited-in-any-other-articles Eboobstore.com. The "PG website" is a fan-created database which attempts to catalog every pink/porn film produced in Japan, and, like iafd.com, its entries no not contribute to notability. While some of the keep !votes allude to, but don't identify, other potential RSs, nothing turns up on examination of the sources, and there appear to be other people sharing the name turning up in the searches, including a TV series character [1] and a notorious child killer [2], as well as a pair of chemists whose names are often cited consecutively, producing the string "Hitomi; Tanaka" [3]. This is just another BLP supportable only by promotional sources, and that shows the subject isn't notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no GNG RS given in "keep" arguments, find two or three that are "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" and tell us what they are to change my mind. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't often comment in this subject area, but I think the comments by Spartaz and by The Big Bad Wolfowitz 's comments about the unreliability of merely citing a Google or similar search as being sufficient without actually examining the articles is very much to the point, and BBW's examples very useful in proving that point. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable in Japan.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without demonstrated coverage by independent reliable sources. The "Look at the Find Sources links" argument doesn't fly as these searches show lots of low quality or false positive hits without anything obviously reliable or non-trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emi Tojo[edit]

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

Won a short lived award presented to its own actors by an adult film production company. No way that should count as significant or well known so fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he's notable as an actor (porn or otherwise) or wrestler.Jakejr (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Employee of the Month-type awards do not demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:33, 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. The consensus of this discussion is that the subject fails to meet PORNBIO. While she won an award, there is no agreement that the award is notable, or that other notability criteria are met. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Tomoda[edit]

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

The award is clearly not realistic. 11 directors invited to apply and 3 winners of best actress. Beyond that standard failure of PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject here has "received a well-known and significant award", namely the 2008 Pinky Ribbon Best Actress Award (see here), which is apparently a pink film genre award given out as a result of readers poll. Also, the subject here has "had significant roles in multiple notable films", including the pink film Best Friend's Wife: The Black Panties of a Secret Rendezvous and the documentary Kage no Hikari (see here). I make no claim to be an expert on Japanese cinema, but the pink film genre does not appear to convert exactly to the Western adult film genre. Guy1890 (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article the award is issued by a regional paper. This doesn't seen to meet the significance criteria in my opinion. Otherwise, how would we distinguish between the Baftas or an award from the Surrey Operatic Society?? Also according to your source the documentary has a budget of: €150 (estimated)> That isn't a mainstream film and I don't agree that a film about a secret rendezvous with your best friends wife and a picture showing a half dressed woman is a mainstream film. Seems a bit straw clutching if you want my opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's always been my position that an award must be both "well-known" (within the specific field that it gives awards out in and/or in the region/country that it gives awards out in) and be in a "significant" award category (meaning that not all award categories from a particular award ceremony are considered major award categories). In this specific case here, we have a notable award given out by a newspaper in the specific genre of pink film (which is apparently not considered the same as Western pornography in Japan) and in an award category of "Best Actress", which is surely a major award category.

Also, we have in this specific instance an actress who has clearly had at least a few "significant roles" (not minor roles or bit parts) "in multiple notable films", which obviously each have their own Wikipedia articles. The fact that one might not like the content or the genre of some or all of those notable films is clearly irrelevant. Guy1890 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "Pinky Ribbon" award fails the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO. It is given by a non-notable regional periodical specializing in erotica. There is virtually no independent coverage of the award or the magazine. Jasper Sharp's Behind the Pink Curtain, which has been touted as a definitive scholarly work in related AFDs (rather exaggeratedly), includes only a passing mention of the award, and none of the awardgiver. The award article itself has no independent reliable sourcing. It's hard to see how the award even meets notability standards, let alone the more stringent PORNBIO requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown here, does not make it unknown there. And we can hope that Japanese Wikipedians come forward to offer translations of the many available non-English sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on either the award or the magazine that gives it out, and mentions the award (assuming the native-language name cited in its en-wiki article) only in a handful of articles, I don't see how we can conclude it passes the well-known/significant test in the absence of reliably sourced evidence to that effect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: I note that Japan does not deal with or consider pornography the same way as is done in the U.S. While here it is generally seen and considered to be a "baser" industry, the adult industry is treated by their media there on a level much closer to that of what we would consider regular film stars. With respects to Spartaz, and as we are not judge the rest of the world by our somewhat narrow and conservative western standards, I would hope we gain input from Japanese Wikipedians better to offer insights as to how that industry is considered and treated in Japan, under their non-Western standards of propriety or lack. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails PORNBIO. No independent coverage/references per Davey2010. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:55, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murmur Creative[edit]

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

Article about small company without an indication of its notability. Slashme (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creative agencies are an important part of the business-fabric of our cities. I wish it were easier to find information about them on Wikipedia, but sadly they get deleted before being given a chance. Hopefully this listing will be given a chance to mature and offer useful information. Ideally, I would love to see a list of all creative agencies in a town or city then linked to their respective pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerves76 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News and Highbeam returned a couple of minor mentions. Nothing substantial in any of the searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable company, although the local bake shop is a client. No significant refs. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable company. Creator has an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding this subject. MER-C 04:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per @MER-C: promo article about a non-notable company. Quis separabit? 19:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there simply appears to be no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hime Tsukino[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Sources are not RS and the awards are overwritten for what they are. For example, the win is for the film not the subject and New Half Queen does not appear to be a notable or significant award. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Just another porn BLP conspicuously bereft of independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlow boxing club[edit]

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

Appears to be an average boxing club where its only claim to fame is that a Mary Lawlor worked there and notability is not inherited. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable club - even the person named is not particularly notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. All I could find were passing mentions and I got 404 errors for all of the article's external links.Jakejr (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The organization just isn't really notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Adeyanju Lipede[edit]

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

A non notable person. Fails on general notability guidelines. References are unclear. Hitro talk 19:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: utterly non-notable; unclear what he is even supposed to be. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:09, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Collegiate Statesmen Foundation[edit]

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

Is not notable, article is a stub with no references. Aparslet (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a pretty obscure organization that doesn't seem to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the news. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails on WP:NONPROFIT. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, hence failing WP:GNG.Hitro talk 21:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 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 speedy delete. G11/A7. Jujutacular (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Lázaro Valero[edit]

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

Subject fails on WP:GNG. Content of the article is written in promotional tone. Advert tag is placed on the article since August 2011. I don't see any encyclopedic value for the subject within the article. Google searches don't emit any favorable result for the subject. Hitro talk 18:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. Entirely promotional, with no real content or sources. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 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 Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically improbable phrase[edit]

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

Notability. Statistically improbable phrases are a relatively generic concept, but apparently has been usurped by Amazon as an official analysis they invented. I can see no reason Amazon's particular commercial application of the idea of statistically improbable phrases is noteworthy. Louiedog (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Louiedog (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it is a generic concept then it deserves an article. If Louiedog thinks it is too much about Amazon, then they can edit the article - it is not a reason for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a reasonable point. It's just that somehow wikipedia decided this was Amazon's thing and as a result, SIP as a Amazon feature has usurped a lot of Google search space. Is there an argument for de-hijacking the meaning of an article away from the apparent more common internet usage? Anyway, I guess I'll start.--Louiedog (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw. As per RHaworth's suggestion, I've edited the article to reflect a more generalized use of the word.--Louiedog (talk) 13:44, 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 deleted as G3 (vandalism / hoax). Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Microwave This Movie[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most likely non-existent movie, if so then probably qualifies for CSD A11. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe G3. Adam9007 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3 as well as The Break A Ball Movie as all of these are obviously jokes and especially this Microwave as the spelling is not even minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to also note that this is obviously a juvenile making jokes as the Aaron Carter song they listed was initially 1990 and they now changed it to 2000. ???? SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 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 keep per easily found sources offered by Shawn in Montreal and nominator agreeing and himself changing his stance to "keep". When WP:NF is met and agreed to by the nominator himself, a lengthy AFD discussion is not required. WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SK. My appreciations to you both. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Voulez-vous coucher avec God?[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NFILM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it meets "other criteria of notability": "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release," thanks to this this 2011 selection to the major European film festival International Film Festival Rotterdam. And we have this Village Voice review for a "rare screening of Voulez-vous coucher avec God? will take place on November 14 (2010) at the Anthology Film Archives, 32 2nd Ave. in Manhattan." Meets NFILM. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Case made, thanks, Shawn in Montreal. In fact, I wouldn't have submitted it if the refs that had been added to the article in July had carried to the bottom of the article so that I didn't overlook them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, BTW the fact that I found the same two refs, for the Rotterdam fest and the Village Voice, was quite by accident. I agree, the embedded links bearing the auto-assigned number didn't seem like anything important, esp. as I didn't have the status bar on my browser enabled, at the time. Thanks to MarnetteD and Sam Sailor for fixing the refs, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 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 deleted as G3 (vandalism / hoax). Diannaa (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Break A Ball Movie[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability. Might not even exist as far as I can tell. Adam9007 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most likely non-existent movie. --189.25.205.234 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is absolutely fabricated with my searches finding nothing at all. If this hasn't been nominated now, I would've. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 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 speedy keep. See WP:SK#1, WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative names for currency[edit]

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

This should just be merged into Slang terms for money. There are no differences between the two articles' subjects, except that Slang terms for money is divided by country. Why not consolidate? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (relate) @ 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 16:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , faulty nom. We actually started talking about merging, but it is the Labor Day Weekend here in the US, so I've been a bit busy with life and haven't found time to hammer more on it. Actually, one is a list, one is an article, so they aren't the same thing at all (note the lack of prose in this page). If you look at the article, it is actually a list of mainly unsourced stuff artificially pushed into paragraphs. In contrast, this page at issue is a true list. Lists and articles are allowed on the same topic. Northamerica1000 moved it from my user space to main space and we are still working on it, but regardless, it isn't redundant and we are already discussing the two entities. This is premature. I would also note that if your goal is to consolidate, AFD isn't the venue. At this time, it is used for deleting only, not for requests to merge. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is a fork of Slang terms for money. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is articles for deletion; merger isn't deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale is not present in the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although a AfD may result in a merge, there is a separate WP:Merge procedure that seems more appropriate here.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 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 redirect to Styloko. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Edwards[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are passing mentions, primary source, advertising-as-news. No in-depth independent coverage. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:ChristmasTide2014 is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 16:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage from reliable secondary sources for a separate article Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge over to Styloko as she seems to only be a bit notable, and that's in the context of her role in that company CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:37, 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 speedy Keep #1 - withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Wes Mouse ✒ 03:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 jurors[edit]

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

Also nominating List of Eurovision Song Contest 2015 jurors for the same reasons. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content is a content fork of jury information that is already contained in each of the participating country articles for the Eurovision Song Contest 2014. Wes Mouse ✒ 16:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination reads more like a mere description of what it is than an objection: this list compiles information in one place that you'd otherwise have to look at 37 separate articles to find. That's one of the main purposes of having lists, isn't it? postdlf (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked at it in that way, so I suppose yes these may well and truly become useful after all. Nomination withdrawn. The articles perhaps could do with being structured properly so they are in compliance with manual of style? Wes Mouse ✒ 03:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Adherence to Mobile Phone-based Health Care[edit]

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

This is an essay and appears to contain a significant amount of original research. Adam9007 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Could, at best, be lightly touched on in mHealth. Alaynestone (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted above, this violates WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Created and edited almost exclusively by a SPA, it reads as if it is a term paper or master's thesis by a nursing education student. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. The SPA is almost certainly a medical or nursing student from Uganda. I left a message on their talk page. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as there's not anything to motivate keeping and although it's interesting, I'm not if it's Wikipedia material. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nandani Sinha[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are passing mentions, primary sources. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:GuardianofLove is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable person. MER-C 04:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by the nominator, the sole reference mentions the subject only in passing. Plus, the competition addressed by the source is not itself notable enough to have generated its own article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable, promotional article.--Smerus (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In doing a google search it seems pretty clear that this opera singer hasn't yet achieved notability. She was a member of the young artist program at the Los Angeles Opera but doesn't appear to have managed to make the leap yet into leading roles with any notable company. She is certainly active with multiple third rate performing organizations. It's possible her career may take off in future, and the article can always be recreated then.4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although I found some results at News and browser, we can wait for better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Allan-Blitz[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are passing mentions, primary source or local papers. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:BluesLover2389 is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article about a non-notable actor. MER-C 04:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously as there's not much (at even IMDb as well) and my searches found nothing even close to good third-party coverage. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 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 redirect to Sam Glaser. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Songs We Sing: Volume 2[edit]

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

Non notable. No independent coverage in reliable third party sources. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:FathersRSpecial is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist article. While Sam Glaser appears to be a notable musician, the album isn't notable enough to have its own article. 和DITOR E tails 00:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per above. MER-C 04:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article for now per WP:AFDP#Music. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guidelines for recordings are met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:10, 13 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 redirect to Sam Glaser. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise (Sam Glaser album)[edit]

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

Non notable. No apparent in-depth coverage in reliable third party sources. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:FathersRSpecial is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Glaser. MER-C 04:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article for now per WP:AFDP#Music. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guidelines for recordings are met. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:13, 13 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 speedily deleted by Kudpung per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Trail Academy[edit]

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

Non notable. Most of the sources are primary or databases. No in-depth independent coverage. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:Ashleyfta is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC) *Delete as artspam and per nomination.. This is not a mainstream school. The major article contributor has a flagrant COI. The article is written likea pronotional brochure. Typically characteristic in all points of the Orangemoody-style (undisclosed paid editing org.) promotional pieces masquerading as articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 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 redirect to Lasha_Bugadze#Novels. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Literature Express[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable novel. I've sourced one review, but I don't find anything else. Perhaps someone who's better at searching can find references to confer notability in the original language of the title. Previously PROD'ed by Piotrus (talk · contribs); PROD was removed without discussion or explanation. Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK. --Edcolins (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect over to Lasha_Bugadze#Novels. From my searching, it looks like even the foreign language Wikipedia versions have little information on this book. It appears to be only a bit notable, and the article we're looking at here ought to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without action. A book by a notable author, issued by a notable publisher, would typically be redirected rather than deleted, even if it were no more substantial than Garfield's Greatest Flea Dips. AFD is not the place to decide an issue limited to redirect or not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notability of the author is not the issue at hand; neither is the notability of the publisher. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:47, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnological Research[edit]

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

Every reference either only mentions the journal's existence, like in a list, or is in actuality a fradulent impact factor company or predatory publisher. This is just another one of the garbage journals that have been popping up in the last three years. All of the sources cited are either reliable or include significant coverage of the journal, never both. Ashenai (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:NJournals - The nine papers indexed by Google Scholar did not receive any citation and cannot see evidence of the journal being considered a reliable source. Too new a journal to be included at this moment. — TaqPol _talk _contrib 07:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binford Harrison Conley[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are primary sources, passing mentions or no mentions. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:BluesLover2389 is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 15:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some Books and browser links. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Also, the fact that "the creator User:BluesLover2389 is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org" is a very good reason for an AFD. Thanks, Green Cardamom, for catching this. Quis separabit? 00:17, 14 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suwon JS Cup[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS notability. - Mr X 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable junior friendly tournament. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not 100% definite on what justifies inclusion of friendly tournaments but, considering it's junior level and lacks reliable sources (certainly English language ones), it probably fails WP:GNG in any case. Spiderone 19:54, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KydoChill[edit]

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

Was nominated for speedy deletion, which the creator then removed. Some references to relevant sites (iTunes, MTV) but these seem to be basic biographies that anyone can add. Delete on basis of lack of evidenced notability, but as contended listing here. KaisaL (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. Not as Kydo Chill either, where all the speedies were. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's obviously no improvement at this time (my searches found nothing good of course). SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 Australia[edit]

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

Puff piece, poorly sourced (one of the references listed is the article [[Carbon neutrality]]; seriously?), mostly written by a single-purpose account. Notability somewhat doubtful. Has maintenance tags dating to 2009. Please WP:BLOWITUP. —Keφr 10:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found some results but nothing convincing of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 13 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. With all due respect to those who vote "delete" (for 1Event reasons, mostly): you have a point, but there is no reason to keep this open longer with such an overwhelming number of "keep" votes. Add up the "merge" and "redirect" votes and it is clear that WP:SNOW applies; the few more days that this is supposed to run cannot change that calculus significantly, and "no consensus" is probably the "lowest" outcome possible even for a longer discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kurdi[edit]

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

The subject is not notable as a biography. His death was not notable in itself - one of thousands drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to migrate. Not notable for being dragged out of the water lifeless with open eyes, and having the eyes shut by the man pulling him out of the water. Not notable for later being found with face in the water, and body on land. Only the reactions to the death photos of him are notable. Burst of unj (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What Wikipedia policy is the nomination based on? It's a list of things that may or may not have happened in the course of this little boy's death but I don't see policy at play, other than, vaguely, "notability". We certainly have articles for the deaths of non-notable people, often titled "Death of...". His death is certainly notable, as is the reaction to his death. Yes, thousands of refugees have died in this crisis, but this one has been well-covered in the news. So, yes, a notable death for someone who never had a chance to be notable. I would be fine with a redirect to "Death of Alan Kurdi. freshacconci talk to me 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Alan Kurdi. Clearly passes WP:GNG Spiderone 13:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Death of Alan Kurdi, well and truly passes WP:SIGCOV, but as a news event, not a biography. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Many wikipedians on the German page [4] want the Alan Kurdi article to be moved to Photographs of Alan Kurdi or Photograph of Alan Kurdi; i will try to translate some of the arguments. Please be aware that the rules on that wikipedia might be somewhat different than our rules. Therefore a comment there is meant for a readership with slightly different wikipedia rules. The following points are from the ongoing deletion discussion of their Alan Kurdi article:

"Lemma eventually move to "Foto of Aylan Kurdi" (...) - Brunswyk (Diskussion) 20:03, 3. Sep. 2015 (CEST)
"The article is about the story of the photos and their reception and effect ... and not about the persona of the boy. (...) move to another lemma". Geolina mente et malleo ✎ 21:17, 4. Sep. 2015 (translated by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
"I suggest to change the name of the article, instead of Aylan Kurdi - rather "Photo of Aylan Kurdi" --Loewenmuth (Diskussion) 21:20, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST) -
"I see the problems in the same way as Geoline above: The Photo is relevant, the boy is highly relevant - but not for a biographic wikipedia article." --Radsportler.svg Nicola - Ming Klaaf 10:33, 5. Sep. 2015
"Keep, preferably with a lemma move (for example "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi" or such), because this is less about the biography and more about the photos." --CG (Diskussion) 10:49, 5. Sep. 2015
"The lemma should be moved to "Photograph of Aylan Kurdi". The article consists largely of the worldwide reception of the photograph and reception of the fate of the boy." --[5] 5. September 2015, 11:03 Uhr - translated by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"As Geolina and Nicola. (...) A biographic article is yet not in place." --Fiona (Diskussion) 12:09, 5. Sep. 2015 -- translated and placed here by Burst of unj (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it possible to redirect to Death of Alan Kurdi if the latter is itself a redirect to this article? Unless the users above mean renaming the article. As far as the subject is concerned, keep as it is clearly notable (with no prejudice against a rename). Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. Apparently this boy was not notable; his photographs are. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because not only one photo was published, but also a story behind it, which is getting a symbol for the European migrant crisis. --Ceroles (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep. As long as the article reflects the tragedy of thousands of refugees on their way to Europe, we should keep it. Furthermore his biography is needed to understand the photos/videos. By the way, this article is already available in 14 different languages on Wiki. Edit: keep both--Moplayer (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no basis for an enyclopedic biography article. Time might or might not establish the photograph as a notable one, or the death as a notable death. If it has enduring coverage beynd a news cycle, then an article could be created about the death or the photograph. Wikipeia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a lurid tabloid. Edison (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is very informative and is based on real story, there are many completely useless articles that are not being deleted. Worry about those first.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – That boy is popular through mainstream despite that lacks notability, But there is need to be an article about Aylan Kurdi and this article can be kept as historic record in the future which may occur similar event(s) in the future, and everyone may know what actually happened to this boy. ♔ MONARCH ^{Ask me} 17:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Death of Alan Kurdi. This is not WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS as it is clearly already a significant news event. Renaming it as "Photographs of Alan Kurdi" is a non-starter. That phrase may make sense in German but in English it's confusing. It sound like he's a photographer and we have an article on his works. "Death of..." has precedent and is accurate. It's not just photographs people are responding to. It's his death as well. The death is demonstrably notable as a news item. freshacconci talk to me 17:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The boy wasn't notable, his death wasn't notable, the coverage was notable, and only for noting the photograph with astounding repetition. The pertinent bits from this and the photo article should be included in the ridiculously short Nilüfer Demir article, and only there. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am absolutely astounded that this article should be proposed for deletion. It is one of the most important stories of recent months, even years. Its affect on policy re. refugees in Europe and around the world has been nothing less than cataclysmic. It has affected everyone who has seen the photos and engaged with the story - we're talking here of hundreds of millions of people. The photos themselves will still be famous decades ahead. If this article were to be deleted by Wikipedia that in itself would generate headlines, and rightly so. Boscaswell (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article easily meets the general notability guideline given the wealth of sources. Rename discussions are already happening, and that should be the proper forum for the nominator's concerns.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Alan Kurdi. It was specifically his death that made him notable (WP:ONEEVENT) and of course the reaction to it. I find the nominator's post here very objectionable - rather heartless and disrespectful. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and then redirect to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. The one reason this victim is notable among many thousands of drowned migrants are the photographs and the world's reaction to them. --Lambiam 21:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - WP:1EVENT only applies to BLPs. Flat Out (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that guideline suggests that it applies to living people only. You may be confusing it with WP:BLP1E. --Lambiam 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I was amazed to see this article listed for deletion. The photographs of him and story of his death were incredibly widely spread and made the story of the refugee crisis a lot more real instead of just numbers. But to have articles only on his death / photos seems to be disrespectful. It would be very unfortunate if this article was deleted when Wikipedia has, for example, 13 lists of Pokémon. Josephus37 (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of respect is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Lambiam 12:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the coverage of the subject is broader than the photographs and meets WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other editors: I had no idea that there was a second article Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse created as a POVFORK by the same editor who nominated this article for deletion. There is a deletion discussion there as well. Other editors should be informed about this as the various discussions around naming etc. is getting confusing. freshacconci talk to me 01:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been paying attention to the relevant talk page [6]. I have created an article about a different topic, that in some ways overlaps the topic you feel should be the main topic. I have shown (thru translations) some of the significant support for the idea that only the Photographs of Alan Kurdi is a notable title/subject. I claim that this article is not a POVFORK of another article, and I also claim that I have not created it as such. Please note that I did coatrack some text about the photos in the Alan Kurdi article before I started the "Photographs- article": The reason being that the Alan Kurdi article was at the time the least inappropriate place to put the text. (If the "Photographs- article" already had existed, I would not have bothered improving the Alan Kurdi article, and I would have placed the photo related details in the right place from the start. And I probably would not have to be hearing about ~~Newspeak~~ POVFORK at this point in time.) --Burst of unj (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - There are many similar biographical articles on WP about people who became notable as subjects of iconic photographs. Some closely analogous examples include Florence Owens Thompson and Marcy Borders. The circumstances of the life of Alan Kurdi are relevant for understanding the impact that the images of his lifeless body are having on the public discussion of the Syrian refugee crisis.--Distinguisher (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel what you are saying. If you also had mentioned Death of Wang Yue, still that example would not convince me, nor if you had mentioned Death of Benno Ohnesorg. Burst of unj (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Lambiam 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of my argument isn't "These other pages were allowed, so this should be too". I am saying that an article titled 'Alan Kurdi' would meet WP guidelines for the same reason these other examples do. To quote WP:ONEEVENT, "In some cases ... a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." Like Alan Kurdi, the Tank Man was himself famous only as a result of being the subject of iconic images that were captured among the events that he was a part of. The Phan Thi Kim Phuc article is yet another example.--Distinguisher (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that Tank Man showed civil courage, by voluntarily putting his fate in the jaws of death to protect the people of China. A three-year-old is not expected to show civil courage, and we don't know that he did. Comparing Kurdi with Tank Man is inappropriate against Tank Man (whose fate some claim is unknown). --Burst of unj (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the guidelines that says to name an article after the person the event is identified with, but only if that person displayed civil courage.--Distinguisher (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to equate Kurdi with Tank Man, then I am calling you out. If one says that Tank Man risked his life voluntarily, then your quote as follows - becomes less "incomplete"; " Like Alan Kurdi, the Tank Man was himself famous only as a result of being the subject of iconic images that were captured among the events that he was a part of." --Burst of unj (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. There are similarities and differences between Kurdi and Tank Man. I'm arguing that they are similar in relevant ways and different in irrelevant ways.--Distinguisher (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Man was (or is) a hero for forcing a tank commander to run his vehicle over Tank Man, or try to manouever around him; Kurdi on the other hand was a three-year-old victim of circumstances, no different than thousands of others during this refugee crisis (and his dead body figures on photos with a notable impact). Calling that "different in irrelevant ways", is a cupfull. Burst of unj (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tank Man was a hero and Alan Kurdi was a victim of circumstances. There is no dispute about that. Both are well known across the world with significant public curiosity about, and media interest in, their biographies because both have come to represent the human face of a political issue. They each stand in a symbolic relation to those issues as icons. It is true that Alan Kurdi is among many who have drowned attempting to reach European shores, but he is quite clearly different insofar as he and not the others was turned into a politically mobilizing symbol. Tank Man is also far from being alone in having the bravery to stand up to authority. Importantly, neither would be widely known or politically relevant if they hadn't been captured on camera. It is exceedingly unlikely that there would be a WP article about Tank Man if the journalist who filmed him had only written about his actions. As brave as they were, they would have achieved nothing without that footage and he would not have become an icon of resistance. He gained that status by representing something extraordinary and being photographed.--Distinguisher (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now I am not arguing that possibility he has become a symbol - a "politically mobilizing symbol". But whatever he has become a symbol for, then that article should have a section about him in addition to a "Reaction to the photos-" or Photographs of Alan Kurdi article. (Another alternative would be to find, or create guidelines about "politically mobilizing symbols"; what are the criteria for the notable ones?) Burst of unj (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. I suggest this be closed as a snow keep to avoid wasting further time. WWGB (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fine wikipedians on the German page have had their deletion discussion going longer than our discussion. And part of the reason is that not even the death is notable in the case of this article, and certainly not the biography unfortunately. However, details of his life have saturated the media. Those details belong in a Reaction to the death of Alan Kurdi or Photographs of Alan Kurdi or some other title that does not start with "The death of", or simply "Alan Kurdi". Why only (?) the German wikipedia and this one are discussing that a encyclopedia should not have articles called "Death of Alan Kurdi" or "Alan Kurdi", I don't know. Sorry if someones feelings are hurt, by any perceived insensitivity. --Burst of unj (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: while I agree that "His death was not notable in itself - one of thousands drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to migrate. Not notable for being dragged out of the water lifeless with open eyes, and having the eyes shut by the man pulling him out of the water. Not notable for later being found with face in the water, and body on land. Only the reactions to the death photos of him are notable", the press coverage and reactions to the photos, for whatever good or bad reasons, have been so huge that it really is a very notable event. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Many similar biographical articles of one individual representing an greater issue/event, and the refugee crisis is quite a notable event --Pinnecco (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably there are no similar articles (and yes there are articles out there that would not survive a deletion discussion). If the article is kept (in its current name), it is not likely that it will be kept because of other articles have not been deleted, or renamed, yet. Wikipedia does not have such a guideline. Burst of unj (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His life is not notable however the coverage and photographs of his death were notable.--Opdire657 (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is abundant media interest in the biographical details of Alan's family, the circumstances that drove them to leave Syria, a previous attempt to seek refuge in Canada and so on, so the news media appear to regard the details of his life to be notable. It's not through his own efforts that he came to symbolize the refugee crisis, but why should that matter for notability? There have also been reports about reports including discussions about the impact of the image and whether such a private moment should have been published, etc. The existence of these meta-reports would also justify including content about the topics you take to be notable ("the coverage and photographs of his death"), but I think it would be hard to argue that the news of the events is more notable that the events themselves in this case.--Distinguisher (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, shouldn't that mean his family deserves an article? He had no say in these decisions the media is interested in. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The media interest in his family is in relation to him. It provides context about his life. And it's clear that Alan didn't come to the world's attention by achieving some feat in the manner of a scientist, artist, athlete and so on, but not everyone becomes notable that way. At two years of age, Prince George of Cambridge is also presumably notable, though through no effort of his own. Henrietta Lacks and various other people who happened to be born a certain way that later turned out be significant are notable without having any choice in the matter. We shouldn't equate regarding someone as notable with bestowing an honor on them. Notable people can be famous for doing bad things as well as good things, or just because they happened (without any particular ambition) to find themselves in a role that later proved significant.--Distinguisher (talk) 14:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The name of this boy yields around 10 million results on Google. Also, the pictures of his dead body and the many articles published around the story of their family and his death have also made him notable one way or another. I believe if Wikipedia has articles regarding the Tank Man and Florence Owens Thompson there is no justification for deletion of this article. Saeed alaee (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is flawed: Tank Man risked his life voluntarily - an act of civil courage. The article about the lady is the redirect from the name of the iconic photo (of her) - Migrant Mother. There is an unfinished discussion going on at the talk page there regarding if she is notable. However that discussion has not been closed, so it should not impact this discussion (at least not yet). One question seems to be: Are we going to lower our present threshold for biographic articles? I say no: There is enough notability for an article about "Reaction to photos of-" or Photographs of Alan Kurdi, but not for a "Death of -" or "Alan Kurdi" article. No insensitivity intended. Burst of unj (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Death of Alan Kurdi per WP:1E. -Zanhe (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From the deletion discussion on the German page: "A seperate biography I find fully overdrawn. Delete and work the photo into the article about the Refugee Crisis in Europe 2015 - that would be my suggestion. --Saliwo (Diskussion) 12:35, 7. Sep. 20152"; translated from German --Burst of unj (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the German Wiki, so don't mix it up. I saw many of your posts belonging to this topic. Every time you are just translating sentences from German and importing them here. --Ceroles (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep. This article should not be deleted by any means. At the very least it should remain as a memorial to this little boy and the many others who have lost their lives in this refugee crisis. This cannot be forgotten and this entry will help keep his memory, and the senselessness of his death, and that of others, in people's minds. That alone warrants keeping this article. The circumstances of his death, and the global reaction to it need recording, and cannot meaningfully be done so without reference to him and his death. I cannot believe it is being considered for deletion in comparison to some of the articles that are published on Wikipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceforachild (talk • contribs) — This contributor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Thank you for your comment, Voiceforachild. However, Wikipedia is specifically not a memorial. We follow notability guidelines and that's why this discussion is taking place. freshacconci talk to me 14:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His death was covered throughout the world and has had a significant influence over the asylum seeker debate throughout the world. Capitalistroadster (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of his face in the surf and his body on the beach,after being dead for a few hours, influenced the debate - not his death. Burst of unj (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The photo is the medium which let the world know about his death. The debate is about seeing a 3 year old boy dead. You are making a semantic argument about the photo versus the content and in this case, it really is about the content. This was news because people were horrified about a 3 year old dying like that. The reason his death is notable is that the photo was available -- but that doesn't mean the death itself is not notable, the exact opposite (or more precisely, it's both the photo and the death. But like other "Death of..." articles, the Death of Alan Kurdi is probably the most appropriate title for this article, which very much should be kept. freshacconci talk to me 14:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to death of Alan Kurdi. The event is very notable, even if the person behind it is not.VR _talk 19:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The event being what: That he died - no differently than thousands of other migrants - or the significant publication of the Photographs of Alan Kurdi? Burst of unj (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Death of Alan Kurdi. This has become a major news item and political issue of migration. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please can the listing as an article for deletion now be deleted? It is very clear that consensus does not support deletion of the article and the notice at the top of the article that it has been listed for possible deletion is IMO embarrassing to Wikipedia.Boscaswell (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassment for an encyclopedia might be more of an issue when standards start slipping in the execution of present rules for the naming of articles. That should be "very clear". --Burst of unj (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just gone through the comments and seen: Keep 14 (including 8 "strong keeps"), Redirecting to "Death of Alan Kurdi", (which now seems to have been deleted and redirects to this page): 7, Delete: 3, Redirect to Photographs of Alan Kurdi: 2. So, the consensus seems to be keeping the article. -Josephus37 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to do a manual count. Just click the "Stats" link at the top of the page, under the article title. It will automatically total each category. WWGB (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks! I'm not really familiar with the discussion section setup. That is good to know. According to that the "keep" votes are 18, far more than the other options. -Josephus37 (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion "far more" than a vote casting. Perhaps more of an advisory discussion, where a board while decide upon the merits of arguments made and other factors, including established guidelines. If this whole discussion was stopped dead in its tracks, then a majority of 18 votes (against say 16) does not automatically mean the article gets kept, or kept under its present name. Burst of unj (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Burst of unj: Although AFDs are not votes and a majority of "keep" votes does not automatically mean keep, the number of keep versus delete is weighed along with arguments using Wikipedia guidelines. If no consensus is reached it is automatically defaulted to keep. A quick glance at this discussion shows that a majority of votes are for keep (regardless of name of article chosen) and the arguments for keep mostly use appropriate Wikipedia guidelines as justification. At this point, it is unlikely to be deleted, it will either be keep or no consensus. freshacconci talk to me 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is either an idiot or is trolling Account created specifically to put this up for deletion. Someone's just trying to mess with people. Volunteer Marek 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is room for all notable information about Kurdi, on wikipedia. Do you think the info should only be in an article about the refugee crisis? If so, it might be logical for you to say "Merge" and "Delete". Perhaps you think that the info is notable, but that the current article name is not suitable for this encyclopedia. Then you might want to say "Merge" to Photographs of Alan Kurdi, or merge to other article names that you might find more appropriate. Burst of unj (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understood what Volunteer Marek is saying. He isn't suggesting we delete the article. freshacconci talk to me 14:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Burst of unj (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E - add content in European migrant crisis. -- Callinus (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to WP:BLP1E, I suggest you read that page carefully, and note that it only applies to articles on living individuals. Robofish (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robofish: - WP:BDP - the BLP policy applies to people who died "six months, one year, two years" ago if material is contentious. BLP1E applies and is frequently cited in cases such as this. -- Callinus (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and obvious keep. The story of this boy's death and its impact is undeniably notable, and already historically significant, having received media coverage and political responses across the world. I wouldn't object to renaming the article to Death of Alan Kurdi, but there is simply no case for deletion. I believe that the nominator, Burst of unj, either doesn't understand the English Wikipedia's content policies, or is deliberately trolling. I suggest a WP:SNOW close of this AFD. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and obvious comment - "The story of this boy's death" is one of thousands drowned refugees. The Photographs of Alan Kurdi lying with his eyes and face in the surf, and body on land (sometime after his body was dragged on land) are what got the notable reaction. Burst of unj (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to give it a rest. Repeating the same thing over and over after every comment is not convincing anyone. It will be up to the closing administrator to decide if consensus is reached either way. freshacconci talk to me 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment Burst of unj, would you please consider withdrawing your nomination, there is overwhelming consensus to merge this article into Alan Kurdi or a renamed version of same. rehashing is not productive. Flat Out (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Flat Out and would suggest that User:Burst of unj withdraw their nomination. The page should be kept. Possibly changed to "Death of Alan Kurdi" or something similar but the consensus seems obvious that deletion is not warranted. - Josephus37 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When one does not see them, one understands the magic which creates" an encyclopedia constructed by guidelines more than by popular sentiment or "Twitterati emotional groupthink imperatives". (Paraphrasing Bild, 8 September 2015). I think we owe it to the wikipedia builders who came before us, to do better than half-arsed thoroughness, when it comes to this discussion which to a certain degree is about application of existing guidelines. (In an ideal world, this wikipedia and the German page would make their judgement at the exact same time, so that the final decision of the one site does not affect the decision of the other one. There is a good chance that the two websites will not make two similar decisions - and that should not be a problem. About your request: I think it would be imprudent for me to request likewise on the German page - even if I could write German fluently.) Burst of unj (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Burst of unj, I don't think it is necessary to be insulting people by referring to them as being "half-arsed" or having "emotional groupthink". When we consider the treatment of other historically significant photos on wikipedia, such as the Phan Thi Kim Phuc running down the road after being napalmed or Nguyễn Văn Lém being executed, the photos themselves are arguably much more notable than the individuals but Wikipedia has articles on the people, not the photo. The only article I can see using the "photo of" title is the article Photographs of Alan Kurdi that you created. For this reason this article should be kept.- Josephus37 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a guideline, or a guideline that was followed, then Migrant Mother should be an article instead of a redirect. Last time I checked there were few articles that started with Photograph of/Photographs of/Photo of/Photos of. (Actually I did not click the links.) Photographs of Alan Kurdi is perhaps an adequate title. Give time for names to stick in regard to titles for the various photos: "Policeman Cradling Drowned Refugee Boy", "Alan Kurdi prostrate 2 June 2015 - from the side" or "Alan Kurdi prostrate 2 June 2015 - ~~anterior~~ blade of foot POV". I have not been convinced by arguments that "Alan Kurdi" should be kept. However I can not see any information about Kurdi that already is on wikipedia, that could not be fitted into Photographs of Alan Kurdi or some other article name. Guidelines do not say that an article name should be "Death of", if the death was not notable (but the reactions to the pictures were). Guidelines do not say that an article name should be the name of the person, if the person is not notable (but the reactions to the photos of his lifeless body are). Burst of unj (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not been convinced by arguments that 'Alan Kurdi' should be kept." Fortunately, the decision isn't yours to make. freshacconci talk to me 04:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burst of unj - There may have been articles about "photos of" in the past, but there are not now. There are pages for Photographs of Abraham Lincoln and Photographs of Charles Darwin but these are fundamentally different, they are redirects to collections of images from the whole lives of those individuals. There is also an article called Photos of Ghosts which is an music album. I do not believe that given this situation "Photographs of Alan Kurdi" is an appropriate title. The point you make about "Migrant Mother" is not correct, as the article about that individual is under the person's real name, Florence Owens Thompson, as it should be. Your "photos of" proposal is interesting but doesn't match the other comparable articles on Wikipedia.-Josephus37 (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the boy is not notable (but only the reactions to the photographs) then where in the guidelines does it say that the article name should be the same as the person that is not notable. Article names, are for subjects that are notable. All info we already have about Kurdi will fit into other articles - in the event that the closing administrator decides not to rename or not to keep. Burst of unj (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your initial claim, that the boy is not notable. To my reading, WP:BASIC doesn't reflect this kind of hair-splitting about him and the photographs of him. I believe the examples I posted above from the Vietnam war photos are the correct approach, where the articles are about the person, not the photo. As for the Afghan Girl article you mention below, personally I would be inclined to have that article under the woman's name (Sharbat Gula/Bibi) than under "Afghan Girl". I think that "Afghan Girl" would have been a fine name for the article when her name was not known and there was no choice but to go by the photograph title. Given that her name is now known, It seems more logical to me that it be under her real name.-Josephus37 (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my reading of wikipedia guidelines, I can not see where it says that if the reaction to a photo is notable, then the article of the photo should be deleted, and an article about a non-notable drowning of one refugee - among thousands of such deaths - should be created (or kept). No insensitivity intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burst of unj (talk • contribs) 10:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the guidelines explicitly address this. And I understand where you are coming from. I simply don't think your idea matches that the common practice on wikipedia, nor are wikipedia's guidelines concerned terribly much with individual recordings of events and people. They are much more focused on the people themselves, and this seems correct to me. Alan Kurdi is a notable person because his death was very widely covered. Yes, this occurred because of the photographs. But the photographs are significant because they show him. The vast majority of votes on this page support this idea, and while I think your idea is interesting, I think it is wrong. There is no need for a page of photos, and that page should be removed and any unique content placed on this one. A discussion can be had about whether this article should be under the name of "Alan Kurdi" or "Death of Alan Kurdi", but I don't see any good reasons, not much support, for the "photograph article" approach.-Josephus37 (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because several Vietnam War photo articles might have article names (possibly) not rooted in guidelines, does not mean it is a practice - something Afghan Girl might debunk - perhaps there is something else going on, perhaps even sloppiness in following up substandard naming of articles X, Z and Y. In the case of Migrant Mother, the discussion of renaming stalled a few years ago after some had commented (and fewer than I have fingers on one hand)? Burst of unj (talk) 11:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think the Vietnam war articles reflect the guidelines, and that your photo idea doesn't. The naming of the other articles is logical, and the Afghan Girl article is the odd one out and should probably be changed. I'm afraid that your continued focus on the photo as opposed to the person simply doesn't make sense to me. I appreciate that you went to the trouble to make an article focusing on the photos and no one likes to see their work devalued or deleted, but I think you are simply on the wrong track here.-Josephus37 (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are differing views on whether the Vietnam war photo articles reflect the guidelines. There are differing views on whether the Afghan Girl article reflect the guidelines. And what "no one likes", is experiencing attempts at having vicarious motives attached at one self; motives insinuated along the lines of "I think that you are being difficult because you don't like people tampering with the article you started, so therefore you ...". Perhaps nobody here is an expert about what "no one likes". Burst of unj (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious issue with freshacconci. that user is even censuring the talk page of Aylan Kurdi. As knonw from the WSJ and other media one of the main reasons were the fathers dental problems. The user freshacconci even refuses that the topic wound be discussed an is treathening on my user page. I have never ever seen this kind of behavior on wiki. 94.111.123.111 (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a place for article-relevant disputes (and your edits there are not exactly constructive). Volunteer Marek 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the case of the (iconic?) photo Afghan Girl, wikipedia got things right. The result (until something eventually might change) being, an article about the photo was created. Info about the biography of the girl/woman has been added to the article about the portrait. Where does the name of the female redirect to? Burst of unj (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either the article on the photograph, or on the photographer. The boy himself was not notable, and his death is not notable. What is notable is the coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of Alan Kurdi, which is an event having world political impact beyond the biography of a small child and incident of his death. Clear GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These photographs, unlike photos of other non-notable refugees, received a notable reaction. Each other death has no article, and there might not be any guideline that says that cases such as his death should have an article. Burst of unj (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Death of Alan Kurdi. Two parallels that occurred to me are Afghan Girl, which is treated as an article about a photograph, and Phan Thi Kim Phuc, which is treated as an article about a person. In the latter case, however, there is notable information about the person's later life, which is not possible in the case of Alan Kurdi. Here, it seems to me, WP:BIO1E is the relevant guideline, and it's the event rather than the person that is notable—if either is. (Oh, and delete Photographs of Alan Kurdi as unnecessary duplication.) Deor (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the case of Afghan Girl article "there is notable information about the person's later life, which is not possible in the case of Alan Kurdi". (Oh, and the Photographs of Alan Kurdi is not a duplication; the deletion discussion there will be revieved on its own merit by its closing administrator.) Burst of unj (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly a duplication as it is not necessary to have very similar information in two separate articles. As for the two articles mentioned by Deor both of the articles have information about later life, although arguably Phan Thi Kim Phuc is more notable than Afghan Girl (Sharbat Gula/Bibi) as Kim Phuc has been involved in public activism for many years. The Afghan Girl article should probably be renamed. As for this article either keeping the Alan Kurdi name or moving it to Death of Alan Kurdi both seem fine to me. Any addition information from Photographs of Alan Kurdi could be merged with this article before it is deleted.-Josephus37 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator will decide the fate of Photographs of Alan Kurdi. The guidelines are not clear about articles like Afghan Girl and the Vietnam War photos. Burst of unj (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to European migrant crisis. Yet another case where WP:NODEADLINE is ignored and we can't wait to cover a recent event without waiting to see whether it becomes an encyclopedic subject on its own or peters away. Sad as it is, coverage is already diminishing rapidly, pointing to the latter. I hate to say it, but that poor little boy does not meet our inclusion criteria for a stand-alone biography and his tragic and unnecessary death is one of tens-of-thousands in the last few years. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A large part of the article relates to the Kurdi family's attempts to get to Canada, which was outside Europe the last time I checked. They were trying to get there as refugees, not migrants. Because that is what they were. Have you been to Kobane lately, where they had lived? Neither have I, but I know that there is not much left. The photographs and story have affected the whole world. Australia has changed its refugee policy as a result, for example. In any case, the refugees (not migrants) come from Syria, which is outside Europe. The Alan Kurdi story has affected refugee policy worldwide and as such it can never be a nothing story. Ever. Boscaswell (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, might I add quickly, it has become an election issue in Canada. When I have time I can expand, if necessary, information about that, but it is definitely ongoing as a story in Canada. Aside from that, I disagree with the notion that the story is fading away. As a topic, it is independent of the migrant crisis. It may not be in the headlines but nevertheless it's beyond any notion of "one event". freshacconci talk to me 23:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The German page seems to have ended its deletion discussion. There it is now "Alan Kurdi". Burst of unj (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, "There is a good chance that the two websites will not make two similar decisions - and that should not be a problem." Maybe the Norwegian page will step in line and change the name of their article, from "Photographs of-". Burst of unj (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely irrelevant: different wikis have different rules and operate independently. --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and move to Death of Alan Kurdi. The event is clearly notable, and any biographical information can be handled there. ~ Rob^Talk 15:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and move to Death of Alan Kurdi.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Death of Alan Kurdi, as noted above the event had some large political impact and passes multiple (if not every) criteria of WP:EVENT. Cavarrone 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Death of Alan Kurdi per WP:1E.--Staberinde (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep move to Death of Alan Kurdi if that name is a better title. Seems to be an easy WP:EVENT pass. -- R45 ^talk! 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (here or at Death of Alan Kurdi), per R45 and many others above; hope the closing admin will note attempts by new editor Burst of unj to derail discussion by haranguing opposers. Miniapolis 00:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "hope the closing admin will note attempts by new editor Burst of unj to" point out errors and inconsistensies. Burst of unj (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not what you've been doing. Responding to almost every comment for keep is annoying. Constantly making the same points over and over again is annoying. Referring to other Wikipedias (German, Norwegian) is annoying and irrelevant. "Haranguing" is a good word for your actions at the two Alan Kurdi ADFs. freshacconci talk to me 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out inconsistencies and errors to a point that annoys you and a number of otheres. If I missed something can that be continued at the discussion I started at User talk:Freshacconci. Burst of unj (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the merge discussion at Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi here to try and prevent the discussion from being fragmented. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse, which has a similar merge discussion moved from Talk:Alan Kurdi#Proposed merge with Photos of Aylan Kurdi's corpse.

Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi because I have found the opinions of plenty German wikipedians who I think have good arguments [7]. Burst of unj (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Many wikipedians on the German page want the Alan Kurdi article to be moved to Photographs of Alan Kurdi or Photograph of Alan Kurdi; i will try to translate some of the arguments. Please be aware that the rules on that wikipedia might be somewhat different than our rules. Therefore a comment there is meant for a readership with slightly different wikipedia rules. The following points are from the ongoing deletion discussion of their Alan Kurdi article:

"Lemma eventually move to "Foto of Aylan Kurdi" (...) - Brunswyk (Diskussion) 20:03, 3. Sep. 2015 (CEST)

"The article is about the story of the photos and their reception and effect ... and not about the persona of the boy. (...) move to another lemma". Geolina mente et malleo ✎ 21:17, 4. Sep. 2015 --Burst of unj (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"I suggest to change the name of the article, instead of Aylan Kurdi - rather "Photo of Aylan Kurdi" --Loewenmuth (Diskussion) 21:20, 4. Sep. 2015 (CEST) - Burst of unj (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"I see the problems in the same way as Geoline above: The Photo is relevant, the boy is highly relevant - but not for a biographic wikipedia article." --Radsportler.svg Nicola - Ming Klaaf 10:33, 5. Sep. 2015 Burst of unj (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Keep, preferably with a lemma move (for example "Photographs of Aylan Kurdi" or such), because this is less about the biography and more about the photos." --CG (Diskussion) 10:49, 5. Sep. 2015 --Burst of unj (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"The lemma should be moved to "Photograph of Aylan Kurdi". The article consists largely of the worldwide reception of the photograph and reception of the fate of the boy." --[8] 5. September 2015, 11:03 Uhr - translated by Burst of unj (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"As Geolina and Nicola. (...) A biographic article is yet not in place." --Fiona (Diskussion) 12:09, 5. Sep. 2015 -Burst of unj (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge I can do the work too if this is the consensus. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi (as I've also recommended elsewhere). --Lambiam 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I voted above but the merge to "Photographs of..." is preferable to the reverse. Also note that the initial proposal did not specify the direction of the merge (although the hatnotes did). — AjaxSmack 16:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - both articles have been nominated for deletion and discussion at AfD should be allowed to take its course. Flat Out (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge - Agree with the rationale in favour of merging. There is no need for multiple articles about Master Aylan Kurdi --Pinnecco (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge . Although the boy's death was of course a tragedy per se, what is interesting is not Alan himself (sadly, he is one victim among many) but the emotional impact of these photos, and their political consequences. Henche I think we should have an article about the photos and their impact, and not about the boy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong Delete The death is not noteworthy aside from media interest and SIG promotion of it. At least 2,600 people have already drowned illegally trying to reach Europe. The death of one more child, while unquestionably a tragedy, is merely another statistic. The media interest in the event and SIG pressure should be noted in European migrant crisis but no page created for it. Wikipedia is not a biography for every human that has, is, or will live on this planet. 人族 (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've just made a pretty strong argument for keeping the article; the media interest. What is "SIG"? Volunteer Marek 07:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user also made contributions to the article, so a strong delete vote is confusion. -- R45 ^talk! 11:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for the Strong Delete vote "just made a pretty strong argument for keeping the" text - in another article. --Burst of unj (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge Relevant biographical details to Photographs of Alan Kurdi and possibly some to European Migrant Crisis. The photographs and events around them are notable. Alan himself is only notable insofar as he relates to those events. SPACKlick (talk) 10:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now the article has a section called "Allegations against Abdullah Kurdi". Is the article about 2015 Boat accident off Bodrum with arrests and 12-passenger 5-meter boat? Burst of unj (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Burst of unj has made a phenomenal number of edits to the article in the past 7 or 8 days. Yet he wants to delete the article. Illogical, captain. Boscaswell (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least one administrator, User:Randykitty, wants the article deleted, I mean merged. If I had not helped develop the article, I would not see a need for a separate section for "Reactions to the 2015 Boating accident off Bodrum". Boscaswell, please send me Linus' blanket/rag/cloth/sheet/towel, so I have appropriate tools for sitting down and sulking. "When seagulls following the fishing boat bla-bla (...) Eric Cantona." Burst of unj (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 24 Keep's and 5 Delete's Burst of unj - This has gone on long enough!!! With what you must admit is an overwhelming consensus is it not time that you did the decent thing by Wikipedia and withdrew your proposal to delete the article? Boscaswell (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please have a look at WP:NOTAVOTE. Your highly emotionally charged arguing here is a good illustration of why we should not create articles for events that just happened (WP:NOTNEWS). As for Burst of unj editing the article while !voting "delete": I often edit articles that I take to AfD or PROD, so that they at least look decent for the time that they are up and, of course, in case the community disagrees with me about deleting. I realize that no admin is going to burn their fingers by deleting this article, but I do predict (and I think my crystal ball is better than usual) that nobody will edit this article any more as little as one month from now. That's sad, but it's the reality. When the "Occupy" movement was in full swing, all kinds of articles were created for all kinds of minor Occupy-related events and people would come with exactly the same arguments that are being brought forward here. Now, of course, those articles still sit around, because they were kept in the excitement of the day, the Occupy wikiproject is moribund, and nobody even bothers taking those articles to AfD any more. In time, the same will happen with poor little Alan. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows this is not a vote, but this is a clear case of a snowball keep: an overwhelming majority of experienced editors have !voted keep citing policy. Consensus is pretty clear. And WP:CRYSTAL very much applies in both directions: obviously we don't know what will happen in a month or a year but there are plenty of sources right now to satisfy WP:GNG. And so this article will sit here untouched in a month? So do many articles. I'm not aware of a guideline that says that's a reason to delete. I'm sure there's plenty of math-related articles that are never edited and never read. That's not the point. We have sources, notability is established and therefore the article should stand. Burst of unj at this point is just playing games and making this discussion about him. No idea what his motives are and I don't care but there's been a great deal of bad faith editing on his part. freshacconci talk to me 16:54, 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 keep. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Abeysinghe[edit]

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

The articles we have on site suggest that this position may be notable, which means that there is some indication that the person here may be notable as well. In light of this I think an afd here would be the best option for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

he was a notable person in 1970,1980 and 1996. He was the in charge of parliament security when the parliament bomb blast in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka did not have much internet at that time. It is why we dont have much articles online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.128.16 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't "go away" over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalibrarygirl (talk • contribs)
Keep because Books and browser instantly found results and simply looking at the article suggests importance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary, and having a historical influence during and after a major national event is indeed pretty notable. As stated above, he's been significantly mentioned by reliable sources (here's just one example), and not just in passing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:00, 14 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 this early but as can be seen here tons of stuff crops up so clearly BEFORE wasn't followed, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ala Hazrat Express[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no sources given that discuss this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just see , how many news sources are coming up. ScholarM (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing called "notable train" and "non-notable train". This train do exists and travels nearly half of India, covers distance more than 1500km. Thats enough. Even Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) doesn't talks anything about trains. --Human3015^TALK 01:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article should be deleted per WP:NTT and the coverage that I found on google news did not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The coverage was just incidental and talked most about delays and cancellations. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is pretty notable not just philosophically but also as per Wikipedia's notability policy WP:N, see it is not always necessary to get notability in media when it comes to India. D Mi^™ 18:14, 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 redirect to Sujaul. Never usually close on one !vote but as per Kudpung All primary schools get redirected so redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sujaul Government Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Searches (of the usual Google types, HighBeam Research, JSTOR, and ProQuest) by English and Bengali names found nothing other than wikimirrors, and the article has been flagged as unsourced for over six years. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Worldbruce (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of course as per age-old practice and precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and probably nearly 1,000 AfD closures.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 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 redirect to Madhupur Upazila. Never usually close on one !vote but as per Kudpung All primary schools get redirected so redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jubo Digital Primary School[edit]

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

The sole source for this primary school article is impressive, a piece in the leading English-language newspaper of Bangladesh. But I haven't found anything else in reliable sources, only one self-published blog post (in Bengali). The article has been flagged for three years for relying on a single source. WP:GNG and WP:ORG call for multiple sources so that a balanced article can be written that doesn't simply repeat one person's point of view. If the primary school were notable, then writers would have written about it, in depth, independently, in multiple sources. Worldbruce (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of course as per age-old practice and precedent as documented at WP:OUTCOMES and probably nearly 1,000 AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Philatelic Federation[edit]

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

Non notable ORG where sources do not exist to establish notability. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Delete as my searches found nothing better than some unexciting results at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Attractions Television[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over seven years, article is about a non notable television show where no WP:GNG passing coverage exists. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing particularly good aside from Books and browser results. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 13 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 : Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax/joke page. A "well known philosopher" whose works were "much appreciated" and who is "widely recognised" for his quote (which basically amounts to "In the future, I will not be recognized for anything"), but not a single mention of him can be found anywhere? Seems legit. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelo Salonza[edit]

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

Fails google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 05:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero hits on DuckDuckGo, Google News(papers), Books and Scholar. Unverifiable, probable hoax. MER-C 06:20, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kidd[edit]

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

This person is iffy. Most of the sources are not independent but I can't tell if this source and this source is enough for GNG or other criteria. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My feeling is this is Too Soon. I think he's probably going places but all I can find are a couple of articles he wrote for Papermag and his e-book on Google Books. It was created by a single-purpose editor who has made no other edits outside the page; and the other significant contributor has also only made one edit outside the page, and that to link to Kidd from Huntington Beach High School (their edit was later removed.) If he does receive more coverage in future, that will be the right time for him to have an article created, but for now it has to be delete from me unless compelling coverage is produced. The two sources Ricky provide do include some editorial commentary on the subject other than the interview, so it is all borderline. Mabalu (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing with mine only finding the same results at Books and browser. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak sourcing, all from blogs or blog-like "indie" sites. Most of what is stated here toward notability is that he has a blog, has some self-published prose, and has created Youtube videos. The information about his modeling career is un-referenced. Some of the content is quite promotional. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 13 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Power Index[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The entire article is mostly speculation of future history. It is a perfect example of WP:BALL. It also lacks enough references to be considered a notable concept. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books and Google Scholar search shows that this concept has received significant coverage in many reliable sources. Accordingly, the article should be improved instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Repeating myself from last time: "At best, crystal ball predictions of dubious value outputted from a non-notable computer model." Carrite (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - When I search for '"national power index" "international futures"' (to ensure results about this subject vs. that combination of words or another index), I'm finding very little. A few papers/books reference the index, but I'm not finding anything much more than a brief one-two sentence explanation of what it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WP:BALL, the top 5 links on google, not counting the wiki itself, are a wordpress site of dubious accuracy. most of the rest cite the same wordpress site. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. On top of the WP:BALL problem, where is the notability of this index? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like other similar indexes from Google, a Google Books and Google Scholar search also shows the concept recieving significant coverage, like Cullen328 said. It also includes past data, not only projected data like other similar lists. In addition, this Google index is from the United Nation's International Futures model, and is hosted by the Google Public Data Explorer, the Atlantic Council, and Institute for Security Studies. DimensionQualm (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
where? i can't find any. this is not the same as the CINC. this is one specific model, that is not used anywhere besides a single wordpress site. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It received significant coverage in reliable sources. Like Cullen328 said, it should be improved instead being deleted. Supdiop (Talk/Contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no, it doesn't, i have ckecked google books, one scholalrly articly refers to it, but it still gets it's information from the same dubious wordpress site. you can't add information that doesn't exist to an article -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The WP:CRYSTALBALL aspects are bad enough, but its lack of coverage in the mainstream press is the real strike against it – ratings that no one pays attention to aren't worth a Wikipedia article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The lack of sustained coverage and the futurism that's involved here make this article appear both unhelpful and also against the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, if not the actual words. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. Asserting the existence of references of the basis of a gsearch without actually looking at them does not show notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is mentioned in many Google Books/Scholars sources but it can't be considered notable as the information itself is dubious. MrWooHoo (talk) 22:00, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BurLARP[edit]

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

I came across this as a new page creation and noticed that the page had issues with sourcing and tone. I decided against immediately nominating it for AfD, as I wanted to give the article's creator a chance to properly source the article and show notability.

The only issue though, is that I cannot see where this is anything other than a neologism that someone came up with around 2014. The article asserts that it's in common use, yet I cannot bring up anything to show that this term is really used anywhere. A search brings up almost solely misspellings of the word "burlap". I also noted that while the article gives off the impression that the episode of Suburgatory named their episode after this neologism for larping, the episode's full title "Blowtox and Burlarp" suggests that the similarity between the larping neologism and the title are incidental, given that the title also misspells the word "botox". I also need to note that the episode aired in early 2013, a year before the term really began being used in South Africa.

I just don't see where this term is in use anywhere. Even if we take into account that this term is being used only in South Africa and not in mainstream sources, we'd still see where it's being used somewhere, even if only in social media. I was initially open to the idea of this getting added somewhere to the existing article on larping, but this appears to be such a newly minted word that I don't really even think it merits a mention there either. I'd speedy tag this as something that someone came up with one day or a neologism, but I would like to have someone else look for sourcing as well.

I've attempted to talk to the article's creator about this, but have yet to get any good response - he stopped trying to remove the notability tags but he hasn't really provided any good sourcing, just merchant links for the episode and other things that do not show that this term is being used. Even the link to Twitter doesn't show where this term is used as anything other than a misspelling of "burlap". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Nominator's careful explanation of the non-existence of the word!New Media Theorist (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 05:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (WP:GNG/WP:NEO). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 13 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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Brothers[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Likely undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 02:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are passing mentions. I see no significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every plumbing supply distributor in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I don't think that this article violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as it's not a list and that policy is about list-like items, I see no evidence of substantial sources that would create WP:Notability.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark K. Bilbo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although the first AfD's consensus was keep, my searches found nothing to suggest better sourcing and improvement with the best results being here (a blog and review here and there) and AfD has certainly changed since January 2006. Pinging the only still active users @Cyde, JzG, and Guettarda:. SwisterTwister talk 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that could be used to source this article other than evidence that he did indeed write the books listed here. If he is the same MK Bilbo, he may also be known for participation in alt.atheism discussions, but again I don't see anything other than the primary source itself. LaMona (talk) 17:32, 13 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endexx Corporation[edit]

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

Although it seems they part of the OTC Markets Group, I'm not entirely sure if this company is notable and the best my searches found was this, this, this and this. As an orphan, there's also no target for moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for actual notability DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 13 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Business Association of America[edit]

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

This company/organization lacks any citations online, even after a news archive search, or even a current website. It may have been as described when it was created in 2007, but now I can't find a way to make this NPOV via verifiable resources. Alaynestone (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alaynestone (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is okay to Delete, the article appears to be a warning about a disreputable organization, the domain name now leads to a Bail Bond outfit.[9]009o9 (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches unsurprisingly found nothing and even with the article's current state, there's simply no signs of improvement for this longtime troubled article. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources for this defunct organization. Best found is a short mention in a book[10] -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 11:31, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Yadav[edit]

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

Aside from starting controversy, there's simply nothing notable and it's not even clear what her "acting" has been aside from a few things. My searches found nothing good at all aside from the usual media including this. There's not even an IMDb (or an equivalent frankly) and no move target. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: IMDb does have one news about her and calling her "actress" and Model. She is basically Bhojpuri actress. Bhojpuri films usually don't get much coverage in mainstream media. I think article has many sources. I can't say sure but maybe she is famous among Bhojpuri film fans. This source is calling her Bhojpuri film's "hottest starlet". She gives semi-nude scenes so it doesn't mean that we should ignore her. She is apparently famous according to Bhojpuri film industry. This IndiaTV news also named her among top 5 "item girls" who rule Bhojpuri cinema.--Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she is a starlet who is nowhere near NACTOR; way TOO SOON to put it mildly and to be charitable. Quis separabit? 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated by both the nominator and Quis. It's also worth noting that the article on Bhojpuri cinema does not include Yadav in its list of notable actresses. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 13 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. Changes to article since nomination show that it meets WP:ACTOR-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bronson Webb[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, all of the references show only that he is listed in credits of various films in small rolls, but show nothing else; no sources show significant coverage or meet any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. Aoidh (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Major role in Luis Prieto's Pusher; secondary roles in Fingersmith, Robin Hood, Eden Lake, The Disappeared and Kill Your Friends; small roles in popular films or TV series such as Harry Potter, Pirates of Caribbean, The Dark Knight, The Tudors and Game of Thrones.--Alienautic (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator I'm sure you think it is notable, but there are no reliable sources showing notability, and claiming that it's a major role in a minor movie doesn't satisfy any notability criteria whatsoever. Your keep comment does not address the reasons for the AfD, why should the article be kept? The reasoning you gave does not meet WP:NACTOR. - Aoidh (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless one of the linking articles looks best for a move target as Wikipedia is not IMDb and none of his roles were actually significant, mostly minor such as attendant and such, and there's not much else to suggest improvement. Feel free to draft & userfy to userspace if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep It is a poor bio, but he is billed third in Pusher (2012 film), which is noted in the NYTimes where his filmography is also reprinted. All of his work is blue-linked with several named roles. I've added both NYTimes references to the article. Appears to meet NACTOR #1 at this point. 009o9 (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Webb's character in the Harry Potter film is also a named role "Slytherin Boy" -- not one of many "slytherin boys."[11] His role may have been a small one, but Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) apparently went over pretty well, 3/4 of a billion dollars. 009o9 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 There are five or six more mentions on Variety, [12] maybe Alienautic could go over some of these and do a little better job on the lede section? 009o9 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While he's played several roles that aren't particularly notable, he had a huge part in Pusher. As stated above, he was third billed in a movie that has become somewhat of a cult hit. There's reliable source coverage that praises his acting in different publications-- here's The Hollywood Reporter highlighting that "a livewire Bronson Webb... chalks up dramatic points in the hard-act-to-follow role that was originally Mads Mikkelsen’s". I have mixed feelings on this, but it looks like the best outcome is to focus on improving the article rather than just deleting it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources saying that movie is a cult hit? It grossed $180k, and there are zero third-party sources in Pusher (2012 film), much less any to indicate any "cult status" for the film. Having a role in a minor film doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR without some serious sources, and that single sentence in the Holywood Reporter piece doesn't satisfy that; an article cannot meet WP:NPOV if there aren't any sources that say anything about a topic to reflect into a Wikipedia article, and an article that cannot meet a core content policy should not exist until it can. It may be almost a borderline case, but it's WP:TOOSOON to have an article. What little coverage there is for this article is barely enough to cover the most basic "films he was in" article, and that's content appropriate for IMDB, not Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON would not apply here because it, specifically WP:NOT YET (actors), is overridden by meeting one condition in WP:ACTOR. That said, the order of names on the playbill for actors is contractually negotiated and reporters generally honor that order of appearance. Billing credits from the Variety reviews alone impart notability by order:

Pusher (2012) - Richard Coyle, Bronson Webb... [13]
Payback Season (2012) - Adam Deacon, Nichola Burley, David Ajala, Leo Gregory, Bronson Webb... [14]
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) - N/A named but bit part[15]
Dead Man Running (2009) - Tamer Hassan, Danny Dyer, Brenda Blethyn, Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson, Monet Mazur, Ashley Walters, Phil Davis, Omid Djalili, Blake Ritson, Bronson Webb... [16]
Cass (2008) - Nonso Anozie, Natalie Press, Linda Bassett, Leo Gregory, Gavin Brocker, Tamer Hassan, Peter White, Paul Kaye, Bronson Webb,...[17]
The Lives of the Saints (2006) - James Cosmo, David Leon, Emma Pierson, Bronson Webb... [18]

Then we have the "About This Person" from his biography on the New York Times,[19] and a blip about people from the Harry Potter cast also appearing on Game of Thrones.[20] This article[21] and this article[22] and this article[23] mention Webb in key supporting roles. The subject meets WP:NRV and the first sentence in WP:ATD reads, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." 009o9 (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you seeing here that shows notability? And what part of WP:NACTOR are you suggesting this article meets? Nothing you've shown gives any substance beyond what IMDB shows; a listing of names and nothing more, and editing cannot improve this page, because there are no reliable sources that can be used to improve it. Even ignoring the fact that this article utterly fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, the article is fundamentally unable to meet WP:NPOV and WP:ATD does not support keeping it, in this or any other state. If this is the kind of significant coverage you're alluding to, it's pretty clear that there is no significant coverage. Articles require significant coverage, and of all of these sources you've linked, not a single one comes even close to doing that, and that is something that is required as a bare minimum for a Wikipedia article; editing cannot improve the page, as you suggest, when the sourcing and notability is the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world does this article suggest it fails WP:NPOV? There is currently nothing in the article besides one sentence and a filmography -- all blue linked and the article exceeds WP:ORPHAN for 3 incoming links. Arguably, The New York Times is the most significant newspaper in the world, thus significant coverage for his filmography -- not everyone with a Rovi bio gets on the NYTimes. Insignificant coverage would be like the credit he got for doing Pirates of the Caribbean,[24] where he is not first billed. A significant part in a plot vehicle is where you play the best friend, kidnapper, love interest etc. i.e., the part is crucial to the story. Thus passes the first bullet in WP:GNG. In this case there is no OR needed to cite that Webb appeared in these films as claimed in the article AND these films are stand-alone published works, also lending to notability. Additionally, the Variety cites are film reviews, the mere fact that someone not playing the lead character is getting a sentence or two is notable. Webb is getting "noticed" by reliable sources (and others) around the web, this is the definition of notability. There is enough out there on him to cobble together a decent start article. I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "Significant coverage", my reading indicates that it means the quantity and reputation of the sources, the footnote in GNG reads that one sentence in a several hundred page book is not WP:N,[25] conversely, a sentence or two in a one page (20 sentence) article would be WP:N and we have several of those. 009o9 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be expanded in any way and still meet WP:NPOV, because there are no "significant views that have been published by reliable sources", so nothing can be added to the article beyond what is already shown at IMDB. As for the New York Times, there is no significant coverage in the link you provided, it is a database pulled from the All Media Guide Movie Database, which is an indiscriminate collection akin to IMDB, and thus not indicative of notability, especially when this is the kind of indepth biography you think the editors at the New York Times wrote? That is not significant coverage by any definition that has ever been accepted on Wikipedia.

You're suggesting that the bare facts "he appeared in movies X, Y, and Z" is somehow notability is inaccurate; you're confusing verifiability and notability which are not the same. Being verifiable does not meet the first criteria of WP:GNG, especially when there is zero significant coverage. A source that contains a short sentence that mentions the subject in an aside and goes into no greater detail is very definition trivial coverage; this article fails WP:GNG utterly, which is the bare minimum for an article, and doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Your reading of significant coverage is inaccurate; what little is mentioned in these reliable sources is that "he appeared in this film". That's it. That is an insignificant, trivial mention that does not address this article's subject in any detail whatsoever. The note you mentioned does not say what you're saying it does. It's saying that if there's a 500 page book on a subject, that's pretty significant coverage, but if it's just a sentence or two in an online article, is "plainly trivial". I'm not seeing a 500 page book, only a sentence in an article. Therefore, per the footnote you cited, and therefore per Wikipedia consensus, this article has no reliable sources that go beyond trivial coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both AllMovie and AllMusic have been RS for quite some time now, they have an editorial staff and so does the NYTimes. The reference is nothing like IMDb, it has made it through two layers of editorial review. Additionally, I don't understand why you keep bringing up IMDb, we are talking about oranges you you keep bringing up apples. Nothing here is sourced from IMDb, it is simply used as an external link.

You are reading the footnote I provided exactly backward.[26] In effect, it says if an off-topic sentence or two is buried in a wall of text (Clinton example), it is trivial -- not significant. Webb is mentioned in several books for his Harry Potter and Batman roles, those refs do not impart notability, but can be used to prove that he played the parts. To the converse, and per dichotomy of scale, two on-topic sentences in a sixteen sentence article is significant coverage, an eighth of the article is dedicated to a critique of the actor/character.Variety Similarly, The Hollywood Reporter spent some ink on him and his character in this article.[27] And the New York Times notes the character he played and his third place billing [28] Third billing in a film that gets this kind of attention is not trivial -- Meets GNG bullet one. Concerning NPOV, the article simply needs a lede section written in prose (citing these sources) and a we have a decent start article for this character actor who has obviously arrived. According to IMDb, he's completed three films this year.009o9 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the "biography"? It's completely blank, and that's my point. It was a database added entry, nobody gave that entry editorial review, because there's nothing there. Are you suggesting that a blank page is "significant coverage"? As for the footnote, I don't know how you're reaching the conclusion you are, the text is literally saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial." It doesn't say anything about "dichotomy of scale"; it is saying that an entire book on a subject is notable, but a sentence or two is not. Please cite where you're getting this idea of "dichotomy of scale", because nothing there mentions that; that is a conclusion you have drawn yourself, but not one that Wikipedia uses. The Hollywood Reporter "spending some ink" is exactly the type of trivial coverage that, per the footnote you yourself provided, does not show notability. Your conclusion of a blank biography meeting WP:GNG is wildly out-of-sync with Wikipedia consensus on what constitutes significant coverage; by the rationale you're providing a phone book would provide significant coverage, as it's a reliable source and the information can be verified. But again, what you're arguing for is that verfiability somehow equates to notability, and that just isn't the case. Can you show one reliable source that provides significant coverage? None of the sources you're mentioned do, and Wikipedia articles require several. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a general clean up, added a lede and references, generic stuff to the infobox, I started with four widely recognizable titles and then had a look at Kingdom of Heaven (film) $130million, the guy has a knack for getting himself into some pretty high budget films. 009o9 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately getting minor roles in "some pretty high budget films" is not a criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, and since this article has zero reliable sources that show significant coverage, it's not an issue of cleaning up the article, it's an issue of sources. - Aoidh (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, if the article only had one or two references, the article has sixteen decent references and now a lede that you said could not be written NPOV. From WP:GNG...

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"

From WP:BASIC...

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

We have multiple sources where he is first billed. From WP:NACTOR...

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

The bio has eight incoming links from the article space and the bit parts he played are not listed. [29] The article was rough when you found it, but I think it has been improved enough to make a decent start article. 009o9 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for quantity over quality, and when none of the sources muster enough notability to meet WP:GNG, it doesn't matter if the article has 16 or 1,600, the number of sources is irrelevant. You're quoting significant coverage, but not providing a single source that meets this requirement, because as you footnote you provided shows, every source is a trivial mention. Trivial mentions do not combine to create substantial coverage, especially when most of them are quite literally stating his name after a role and nothing more. Incoming links from article space is completely irrelevant to notability, and you may think the article has been improved, but as I've said multiple times already, it is the sources that are the issue, not the content. You can rewrite the article as many times as you would like, but if neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR can be met, the article should be deleted. As for the "improvement", you literally rewrote his filmography into prose, nothing you wrote there is not already contained within the filmography; if redundancy is an improvement then we differ on that definition. Do you have any sources that can actually expand the article into something meaningful? - Aoidh (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as A suitable start class article which can be expanded over time and through editorial attention. As long as information within a BLP is properly verifiable, we do not "have" a demand that it be it be "immediately perfect", nor we do not mandate it "be right now" some class "A" article or even a featured article. We have a reasonable assertion that it meets WP:BASIC and WP:ACTOR. I am mindful that the guide WP:GNG is just that... a guide that accepts the use of WP:COMMONSENSE and allows occasional exceptions. I tried to clarify this when I wrote Wikipedia:Too soon and its section about Actors and actresses, and the related Wikipedia:The GNG and notability for actors. I note with thanks the efforts of 009o9, in that it has been markedly improved since first nominated. It is no longer the unsourced new stub article that first caught the nominator's attention.[30] Being weak on GNG is not some automatic or immediate death knell and it is now a decent start class that serves Wikipedia and its readers. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Though he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, he meets WP:NACTOR #1, which requires that he "[h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is fulfilled by his roles in Pusher and Winter Is Coming. From http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2012/10/12/agyness-deyn-pusher-performance-inspires-sequel: "Deyn stars alongside Richard Coyle and Bronson Webb." He also played a significant character in Winter Is Coming.
From Wikipedia:Notability:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Excellent work on the article by 009o9. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Nikolaou[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't played a professional match and also fails WP:GNG Spiderone 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano D'Alfonso[edit]

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

Non-notable person outside of local news. WP:TRIVIAL coverage only. KDS4444^Talk 00:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, the current president of Abruzzo (an Italian region with an area of 10,763 square kms and a population of 1.3 million) obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN#1. --Cavarrone 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like the partisan political intrigue around D'Alfonso's tenure is notable enough to be referred to by sources other than mere local news, such as this book written for international audiences about modern Italian politics. Here he is having a lot said about him by la Repubblica. He's a notable figure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks senior enough to be notable. The Italian Wikipedia article is much longer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The regiones of Italy are its first-order administrative division, its equivalents to what Canadians call "provinces" and Americans call "states" — so the president of a regione cleanly passes WP:NPOL. The article definitely needs expansion and improvement, but that can be easily had by translating the much longer and referenced article that already exists on it:. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Schrock[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested by the articles creator due to the fact that this match report has Schrock listed as well as Soccerway for that and the S2 match on August 19th. However, both Sacramento Republic and Sounders FC websites as both match reports on the USL website list Chris Christian and not Schrock. Both tweets by Switchbacks FC on August 14 and August 19 also list Christian and not Schrock. So it doesn't look like he meets the guidelines. – Michael (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic USL. deathgripz 00:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with appearances for Colorado Springs Switchbacks who play in United Soccer League listed as fully professional in WP:FPL. The league's website clearly shows he started in their last match (with a foul and a shot on goal [31]). Nfitz (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Per Nfitz; subject has now played in the United Soccer League, which is a fully professional league, and therefore passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote struck out as it turns out that Schrock did not play in the aforementioned match. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold on a minute. @Nfitz: and @Mattythewhite:, I'm confused now. Why does the link that Nfitz presented say that Schrock was in the lineup, but the both the Timbers page and Switchbacks instagram page show Chris Christian? Something's wrong here. – Michael (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just took a quick peek at the Switchbacks roster and I don't see him on there. – Michael (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schrock I meant. – Michael (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, looking at the the video on the Timbers site you linked above, you can see shirt 3 is Christian, not Schrock; this is a bit schrocking! And given that Shrock is a red-head, it's clearly not Schrock in the video at 3'20". How unusual. So where is Schrock these days then? Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is, in July, as a new assistant coach of Colorado Mesa University [32]; so I'm withdrawing my keep (FYI User:Mattythewhite). Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is weird. I can't imagine the USL website making errors like that. They tend to get everything mixed up. At least I've been kept busy creating articles and directing traffic on Wikipedia when it comes to USL players. Especially with S2 where they're saying Kévin Parsemain made six appearances for the club, which is not true because he never signed with them. I don't know, this is just odd just as you guys said. – Michael (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the players have the same shirt number, it looks like the league doesn't have the current roster, and that's made it way into the match report. And presumably that can happen to others. Nfitz (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 10:49, 13 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.