< 22 April	24 April >

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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Rose[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, based entirely on one primary source and one blog with no evidence of reliable source coverage in real media, of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The claim that his single charted in the Canadian Hot 100 is proving unverifiable -- while a press release from his own record label has it entering the charts at #39, Billboard's own website fails to corroborate that, and I can't find any other valid source that does so either (I found a blog which gives it a #97 peak, but that's neither acceptable sourcing in and of itself, nor a high enough chart position to confer a presumption of notability in the absence of a demonstrable GNG pass.) And on a Google News search, I can't find hide nor hair of even one piece of reliable source coverage about him. As always, a musician does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion is claimed -- he has to earn one by virtue of reliable source coverage which verifies passage of the criterion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails GNG. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AllMusic, a reliable website, confirms the #97 peak for this single here. Maybe the #39 peak refers to the Canadian Country Music Charts – either way, still fails notability. Richard3120 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests at least better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per discussion. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Snake Corps[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Not a single external ref provided. Nothing significant turns up in searches other than niche media mentions and the standard Youtube clips. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a page about snakes - its a music band name the word corps means a group of people - not a dead snake - I am unclear what the problem is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.89.231 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a a much loved rock band , who still play and create music - there maybe a misunderstanding here - Velella - this is not a site that advocates violence against snakes - its a name of a rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnakecorps (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As many here will be aware, 1980s/90s indie bands regularly get nominated for deletion, mainly because they were at their peak in a pre-internet era, and hence do not make big returns on Google searches. That really is a fault of the internet and not of The Snake Corps; journalists have written much about them, but not in a digital format. If I still had all my old copies of NME and Melody Maker, I would be able to add the desired references, but such things don't very often get kept for 25 years or more. It is therefore entirely in the domain of those few specialized editors with old books and magazines to insert a few historical notes and sources as and when they come to light. Otherwise, the article speaks for itself; this was no anonymous, one-hit-wonder group, but a widely appreciated musical artist with a loyal, international following and a solid back-catalogue of recordings. They continue to tour the world giving live performances, and in my opinion, continue to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in more references and will continue to update and upgrade this article. yes there are utube clips some with over 100,000 views - the band is just about to release a new album which is a significant event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnakecorps (talk • contribs) 21:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry not over 100,000 near half a million views !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaXw50S7xmc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesnakecorps (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why do you think the band should be deleted? To be honest I follow this band since they started in the eighties and I still do, I am a fan from Spain, they are very respected in my country and they are still doing gigs as there is plenty of interest in them. I went to a gig in Tarragona in November last year and it was absolutely full - you can check in youtube videos. This band like The Chameleons, Sad Lovers & Giants, The Essence weren't mega famous, but doesn't make them any less worthy. In fact one of the reason they were not no 1 in the charts is that their music was not written for commercial gain but for the love of the sound they made. The Snake Corps in my view were a seminal force and have been cited as such by the new indie bands that have followed them and continue to go to see them and enjoy there music. They are soon to release an album which will generate a new audience and new things to write about and cite. Long live the Snake Corps !!!! (and on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.36.235 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so that will be the reason that your IP is registered in Brighton, UK and this is the only edit you have ever made from this address on Wikipedia. Curious . Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All but one of Keep votes are by the same person. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a vendetta? ex-band member? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.89.231 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting the necessary improvements to confirm keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Impressive releases - two studio albums and a compilation on the very high quality indie label Midnight Music (virtually every other artist released by the label is notable) and a compilation on Anagram, but little coverage found, no independent chart placings, no Peel sessions. The existence of pre-internet print coverage is very plausible. --Michig (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concession that topic is notable is implicit in above discussion. Article can be improved, yes, but that is for tagging, not AFD. AFD is not for cleanup. --do ncr am 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve the article, don't be hasty to delete. -- RM 13:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as sufficient consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The prod tag was removed by the IP user 43.243.112.78 with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-it has the current record for the longest film ever. Which is quite notable. Which yes it is an experimental film, but so are all the films that have that record! (Such as the famous Cure for Insomnia) Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral – I want to say keep, but only if this film truly exists as claimed. Other than the website, finding sourcing has been nothing but challenging. The article remains unsourced and would love to change my !vote to a keep if some reliable secondary sourcing can be added. When doing a cleanup of the article in March I tried to find WP:RS without much success. per sourcing as found below. Good work!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more:

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

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

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

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

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

Keep, as the ridiculous length of this experimental art film is confirmed in detail by Daily News and Analysis and Inovativ Kultur (Swedish) and even in NRC (Dutch) in their discussing someone's plans for an even longer film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable experimental film, I have added a few more references. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. do ncr am 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I possess nothing new to say, except that if this is legitimate, then it should be kept as a record for the world's longest film.Etillenecuit (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2016 (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) 09:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway 581 (Greece)[edit]

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

There is no reliable evidence to prove that Motorway 581 ever existed.

The road that the article claims as a motorway is in fact outside the motorway, as the "end of motorway" signs appear as you exit the A5, before entering the alleged branch. For foreign editors: the position of the end of motorway signs are at 1 and 2. Marianian^(talk) 23:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there does seem to be recent road construction in the area, I can't find any sources even mentioning A581. Furthermore, the Google streetview mentioned above was taken in August 2014, after the supposed opening date claimed by the article's one source. Bing Maps shows this road as 583, with a different but nearby road as 581. I can't even find anything about EO33a, the supposed precursor to this limited access road. "Pepper" @ 04:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there's nothing suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 April 2016 (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 Sphilbrick per CSD A7 (article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BB Gunns[edit]

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

No claim of notability. No independent reliable sourcing. No sign of reliable coverage. No nontrivial GBooks hits. (Apparently she did have a minor role as an unnamed character in a single film). This article has never had a legit reference (just one bit of spam) but has somehow hung around for nearly six years. PROD removed by now-indeffed aticvle creator, long ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin C. E. Stuart[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a medical school academic, supported solely by his own staff profile on the website of his own institution (a primary source that cannot confer notability) with no indication of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. This is not a position that confers an exemption from our sourcing requirements -- no matter what notability an article claims, it's the sourcing that determines whether it's a keepable article or not. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be upgraded to an acceptable minimum standard -- but it can't be kept in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable medical academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep h-index of 20 and one paper with 738 cites , just passes WP:Prof#C1 in highly cited field. What media, except science journals, does the nominator expect to cover the work of a a research scientist? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There has to be something somewhere. No claim of notability ever confers an exemption from having to be reliably sourceable somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? There are over 1000 sources that cite him on GS. Click on the link. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Any comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Member of CAHS is a pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Dean of a major university such as British Columbia is enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Eppstein, Twister & Xxanthippe. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2016 (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. Note that the nominator withdrew in a later comment. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Field & Stream (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODABS. Only has two topics and one of them is primary already... Nohomersryan (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also the very similar Fields and Streams which may confuse readers. The magazine may be at the primary page, as it was created first, as it seems to be misplaced. Page view statistics for both are similar (especially significant bearing in mind many people wanting the retailer's article end up at the magazine by default, inflating the statistics. A Google search for 'Field & Stream magazine' receives over 8 million hits, but for the retailer, there are over 12 million hits. The magazine should be moved to Field & Stream (magazine) and the dab kept to show readers the three possible pages they may be looking for. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clarityfiend added one more blue link and I used Dabfix and found 4 more valid entries. Were other entries looked for WP:BEFORE nomination? Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. I misread the magazine title. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goose is cooked. Sure, withdraw the nomination. But what's Dabfix? Might be useful in the future. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nohomersryan, [1] dabfix will tell you if there are missing entries, it's really useful. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 28 April 2016 (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael G. Wilmot[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to notability per WP:AUTHOR -- the strongest thing here is that he won an award from a local theatre festival in his own hometown, and the referencing is based almost entirely on primary and directory sources with only a small smattering of purely local reliable source coverage that isn't enough to pass WP:GNG. As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he can be verified as existing -- it takes real media coverage, verifying a real claim of genuine notability, for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some local coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find some local coverage, and not enough to pass AUTHOR. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CSD tagger. — Music1201 ^talk 00:09, 2 May 2016 (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. Evidence of notability provided to back up arguments for keeping. Nomination based solely on article state. Other argument for deletion can be given no weight. Michig (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeTTS[edit]

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

An article that has been around since 2004 but still has only a single reference and that is only for one feature that compares more favourably than a similar feature on another product. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as this is currently still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Google books shows several pages of coverage in a book 'Integration-Ready Architecture and Design: Software Engineering with XML' By Jeff Zhuk p 134-136.Dialectric (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This software is discussed in reliable sources. For example:
1. Wilcock, Graham (2003). Integrating natural language generation with XML web technology. EACL '03 Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vol. 2. p. 247. doi:10.3115/1067737.1067796.
2. Adam Myatt (25 February 2008). Pro Netbeans IDE 6 Rich Client Platform Edition. Apress. p. 418. ISBN 978-1-59059-895-5.
3. Josh Juneau; Jim Baker; Frank Wierzbicki (5 March 2010). The Definitive Guide to Jython: Python for the Java Platform. Apress. p. 210. ISBN 978-1-4302-2527-0. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Ivan Habernal; Vaclav Matousek (19 August 2011). Text, Speech and Dialogue: 14th International Conference, TSD 2011, Pilsen, Czech Republic, September 1-5, 2011, Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 375. ISBN 978-3-642-23537-5.

SJK (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – See WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include the following, which were easily found using the Google Books link in the Find sources template atop. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 1 May 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Juliett[edit]

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

Contested prod. The person who put up the prod put: "Featured" is an overstatement. She is mentioned (self submitted blog ?) on these sites. I see nothing notable here but self aggrandisement. Fails WP:GNG

I agree and like to say that she has questionable notability as well as a autobio Wgolf (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODed this and, as the prod has been removed by the author, I now support this AfD as I can see nothing notable or of encyclopaedic merit here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBIO Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage generally involves short mentions of her in articles on other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too soon for an article yet. We don't have enough coverage of her creative efforts to satisfy WP:CREATIVE, and the coverage of her activism is more about the LGBTQ campaign than it is about her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theri 2[edit]

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

Film that has not even been greenlighted from what I can tell-I tried to find the first movie to see if it exists and it came out this month. No clue if this is even coming out if ever. Wgolf (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Opencooper (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD:Theri 2 Theri sequel Atlee Kalaipuli S. Thanu Vijay

Delete for now for being TOO SOON. In searches I found that Theri 1 exists and the proposed sequel "is anticpated". This might be best as a sourced mention of future plans in director Atlee's article, but not as a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:06, 29 April 2016 (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) 07:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim D'Annunzio[edit]

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

Subject is best known for his campaigns for US House of Representatives and Senate seats but has not won an election. Meatsgains (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP But the article needs work. Tim is infamous in North Carolina and there has been significant coverage of him in the media in the past. Eric Cable ! Talk 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the articles that have been published on him cover his political campaigns, all of which have been unsuccessful... right? Meatsgains (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, except in vanishingly rare circumstances on the order of the media frenzy that ate Christine O'Donnell. Local media have an obligation to cover election campaigns taking place in their local coverage area, so all candidates are always going to get some local media attention — accordingly, campaign coverage does not count toward WP:GNG until it turns into something far outside the scope of the merely expected level of local coverage. But nothing shown or sourced here does that at all; nearly all of his campaigns are dispatched with a single sentence of the "he ran, he lost, the end" variety, and the only one that's covered any more substantively than that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat he's running for, but nothing shown here gets him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate with no claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed candidate for political office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLogic WebMail Lite[edit]

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

Page mostly created by single-purpose accounts. Cannot easily find any reliable sources discussing this product. --Michael White^T·C 20:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. One of the two sources on the page is a blog. Meatsgains (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are incidental mentions in lists of software, and one is a personal blog. A search turned up forum posts and brief mentions but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 28 April 2016 (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shizuo (musician)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability and unlikely anything else better considering his death and the timeline. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 23 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manhunt International countries[edit]

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

fancruft. Not sourced conform WP:RS The Banner talk 19:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced list. The sources currently included on the page are dead links. Meatsgains (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research.--Richie Campbell (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At least for now. This list seems to be similar to List of Miss Universe countries. However, the only 2 references are not working and neither appear to be reliable. I looked up the official website of the event and only found a list of winners, but no list of contestants. The individual event articles by year (such as Manhunt International 1993) have hardly any references. If reliable references are found, they should be first used to support the information on these individual event articles. Till that time, this article can remain deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 28 April 2016 (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) 09:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iszoloscope[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2012. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 19:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 19:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Only source on page is the band's website. Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ad Noiseam as a possible search term. Delete - never mind, there's no primary record label as a target here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:51, 30 April 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phuq[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect to P.H.U.Q. (as an applicable search) as none of this is imaginably better for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of anything notable relating to the subject. Will211 |Chatter 00:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but don't created a redirect. Typing phuq in the search box brings up PHUQ, which already redirects to P.H.U.Q., so a duplicate redirect isn't necesary. This is just about impossible to search for, because of the obvious phonetic connection to fuck, but I tried quite a few combinations and couldn't find anything beyond listings at music sites like Soundcloud and mirrors of this article. But I would say do it without prejudice against a recreation if someone knows of good sources that we just can't properly search for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:59, 1 May 2016 (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 per WP:CSD#A7. Article salted, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Mazumder (Poet)[edit]

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

A7 was contested by IP. Repeatedly recreated, both at current location and at Ankur Mazumder. No indication that the subject meets the notability requirements at WP:BASIC; the only source provided is user-generated and I am unable to find anything better online. VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may well be 19-year-olds who are notable poets, nothing in this article suggests that the subject is one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2016 (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. Promotional content; without notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Treatstock[edit]

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

Promotional article about company whose notability is not established. Most of the references appear to be paid references, directory entries, or the company's own web site.

The history shows that the author (probably the CEO of the company) submitted a draft to AFC more than once, and it was declined each time, so chose to move it to article space. AFD is the appropriate forum to consider notability of articles in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but no objection to delete. I had noticed the promotional tone myself, and I spent some time removing the fluff because I thought the article was salvageable. The references, while restricted to trade publications, do seem like reliable sources for their purpose, and I doubt that they are paid references as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, I have never agreed with the concept of notability being conferred solely by coverage in niche trade press; I prefer to see broader coverage. On the Gripping Hand, our notability guideline WP:CORP doesn't mention excluding trade publications (I have advocated that it should, in the past), so I admit I can't find a policy-based reason to delete if the sources are indeed deemed reliable. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself reviewed this and found nothing to suggest imaginably better now and I'm not seeing anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 19:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional tone. — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore, and that by itself isn't a reason to delete if the prose can be made more neutral. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the feedback for the article, I have made every effort to not make it sound promotional in nature. I recently signed up to Treatstock and sell my models on there and I noticed there is nothing on Wikipedia and wanted to write something about it. I feel this article about the site is helpful and insightful for people of wikipedia and contains information that best reflects what the site is all about. ~Daimand (talk)14:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because too promotional. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:38, 2 May 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Solomonides[edit]

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

Coverage is for a single non-notable event and the subject thus fails WP:BLP1E. To whit...

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Oddly, skiing is not covered in WP:ATH but I cannot imagine that being the first person from Cyprus to ski to the South Pole would be considered as conferring encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subjects only "claim to fame" was being the first Cypriot to have skied to the South Pole, which would fall under WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's amusing but still questionable for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable skier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG outside their single notable achievement, so WP:BLP1E definitely applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 1 May 2016 (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 choice-supportive bias. Sandstein 14:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-purchase rationalization[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this concept has any general recognition or notability. The sole cited source deals with related issues, but does not mention Post-purchase rationalization at all. The talk page shows that several editors have questioned whether this is notable, and whether it's original "research", at various times from 2007 on. (A deletion proposal (PROD) in January 2016 was removed without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 21:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you opt for deletion so we can move it over to Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk 22:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Leaning delete – unless more sources can be found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, but I'm not sure which target - So here's the thing. This is a pop psychology term for a particular type of choice-supportive bias. In the academic literature (consumer/marketing research, mostly), it's typically called "post-decision evaluation" or "post-decision product evaluation". Upon discovering this, I started to revise the article to be framed as such, but found that I had more or less scrapped the whole thing and started over. So I did just that, and created Draft:Post-decision product evaluation (in a very stubby state currently). The more I dug, though, the more I was unsure there's all that much to say about this subject beyond the phenomenon of choice-supportive bias in general. The idea is that when we're personally invested in a decision, we're more sympathetic to stuff that says "good job" than stuff that says "wrong one". So it's redirect for sure, and not merge, because it seems like a likely search term, but there's nothing useful to merge. I'm just torn as to whether it's worth pursuing Draft:Post-decision product evaluation and redirecting there, or whether we should just nix that draft and redirect to choice-supportive bias. Pinging participants for thoughts: @Northamerica1000, Jtneill, Music1201, and JamesBWatson: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. This is a poorly written and barely referenced stub, but a simple look at the find sources tool above shows there are sources (books, news, scholarly articles). The term is defined and used. I am not sure if this should be redirected to choice-supportive bias or kept, but I do oppose outright deletion. The term is not ORish and this could be salvaged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Choice-supportive bias with a small mention; it is a mere application of it. I see little need for a full article, and the term exists. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Choice-supportive bias as suggested above. It's a type of a thing. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 28 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Crouere[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local radio personality and non-winning electoral candidate, sourced only to a single deadlinked news article for which he isn't the subject, but the bylined author of it. This is not the quality of sourcing it takes to get a person over WP:GNG, and nothing here is substantive enough to earn him an exemption from having to meet GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no notability AusLondonder (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting any better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lost in his run for the state legislature. Other than that he is a local political operative and commentator with no clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CortexGear: AngryDroids[edit]

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

Released over a year ago and still no reviews in Metacritic. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 18:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing for the applicable notability and nothing convincing of anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, looking it up on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine does not bring up any relevant information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:11, 28 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McLeod[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources except for a single Q&A-style interview in the local newspaper, of a radio and television personality whose notability is limited to a single midsized media market. This is not sufficient notability to get a person over WP:CREATIVE in and of itself -- for anything short of national broadcast network prominence a radio or television personality has to be sourced over WP:GNG, but none of the sourcing here is acceptable and some of the biographical details are so unverifiable that I suspect they were gleaned from a direct one-on-one interview of the subject by the article creator rather than from published sourcing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local media personality with no clear claim to fame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Johnpacklambert said, local media personality, not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 1 May 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Savage (radio personality)[edit]

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

Non-notable readio announcer. References and timeline puffed up to make this person look notable-- when in fact they are not. Article has obvious COI edits by two user names very similar to subject. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage. Just primary information that he's had various jobs. (Also not to be confused with the notable Michael Savage.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not because of COI, but because fails to meet or plausibly assert our minimum notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While hosting a nationally syndicated radio show would be sufficient notability if the article were sourced properly, it's not a freebie that entitles him to keep a poorly sourced article just because he exists. (Frex, just because a show is available on the syndication market doesn't necessarily mean any significant number of radio stations have actually picked it up — so the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about him and the show is what would constitute the difference between keeping this and deleting it.) Exactly none of the sourcing here is acceptable, however: the one thing that might actually qualify him for inclusion is sourced only to its own self-published website about itself, while the independent sources are all mere blurbs, covering him in purely local contexts that confer no notability at all. In other words, nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to get him over our inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 28 April 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Zakaria Jomaa[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. The only sources unambiguously about this person are press releases, mere statements that this person isn't the same as Ayman Joumaa, or (overwhelmingly) both. —Cryptic 18:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC at this time, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 1 May 2016 (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 articles in question are found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Udovicki[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP, sourced entirely to primary sources except for a video interview with him on YouTube, of a film director whose only discernible claim of notability is having won the Best Director award at a non-notable film festival, which is not a compelling WP:CREATIVE pass -- and a spinoff article about his film, which makes and sources no claim of notability whatsoever under WP:NFILM. As always, neither a director nor a film is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for them to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles lacks sources to pass GNG and makes no actual claim to notability, having his film win an award at a non-notable film festival is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all convincing of the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage about either him or his film to show that either of them meet WP:GNG. Pinging both Johnpacklambert and SwisterTwister, who appear to only be commenting on the director, and not also on the film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 1 May 2016 (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. Mike V • Talk 22:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VR eSports[edit]

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

Concept is not independently notable from eSports. As an independent topic, it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I'd entertain a redirect to a mention in eSports if someone were to source it. As it stands, this topic depends on unreliable sources and there is no evidence of a separate VR eSports from eSports itself. czar 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon perhaps, not yet convincing of the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, my thoughts exactly: WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:CRYSTAL. And if VR eSports will become a thing, it should be mentioned at eSports first, before having its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is pretty much split down the middle on this. The deletion arguments sound pretty strong to me, especially given the dearth of good sources, and normally I would be willing to ignore the headcount and call this a delete, based on the strength of the arguments. But, we have a statement from doncram that he believes the article can be improved, and he's willing to put in the effort to do so. My suggestion would be to give him time to work on this before bringing this back to AfD again.

Had there been any sort of consensus to move this to draft, I almost certainly would have gone with that. But, I don't think it's my place to invent that option when none of the participants suggested it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Boulevard System[edit]

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

Search for sources: I searched for the "Chicago Boulevard System", but only ended up with two potential sources: "Villaire (2011): Best Bike Rides Chicago"^[1], and "Thompson-Stahr (2001): The Burling Books: Ancestors and Descendants of Edward and Grace Burling, Quakers (1600-2000)"^[2]. I am not satisfied with either one, and especially the latter is more of an memorial about the 1800's. Actually, the more I have dug into the topic, the less convinced I am that such a term as the "Chicago Boulevard System" would even exist established. Indeed, the terminology is quite diverse, and, many of the sources discuss like a) "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", b) "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District", or c) "Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System", all of which have slightly different meaning.

References

^ Villaire, Ted (2011). Best Bike Rides Chicago: The Greatest Recreational Rides In The Metro Area. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 22. ISBN 9781461746485.
^ Thompson-Stahr, Jane. The Burling Books: Ancestors and Descendants of Edward and Grace Burling, Quakers (1600-2000). p. 903. ISBN 9780961310400.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's comments: Chicago is a city that consists of a lot of parks, boulevards, park districts, and boulevard districts. Some of them remain well-documented (such as the "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" mentioned above), but I am not entirely convinced if this very term, the "Chicago Boulevard System" should merit its own article. Moreover, we already have the article "Chicago Park District", a concept way more established than the "Chicago Boulevard System".

The article was created in 8 March 2016, which means that it is quite a new one. (For comparison, the Chicago Park District article has been created in 4 November 2005, and is far more developed and better sourced) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Roads and expressways in Chicago. I would argue that the Chicago Boulevards are notable as part of the city of Chicago, although I personally don't know much about their history aside from (I believe) being part of the Burnham Plan and the fact that the streetcar companies were prohibited from operating on them (overhead wires) and that the "L" companies were required to have decorative elements wherever their lines passed over one. That being said, the information in the article is scant and clearly isn't enough to support a standalone article at this time. I would argue that the proper article for this is not the Chicago Parks District, but rather Roads and expressways in Chicago as the boulevards are Chicago roads. They do connect major parks in the district, however their primary function is that of transporting people and vehicles. The various historic districts are so named because of their location in relation to the boulevards. At present this would make an excellent section as part of the aforementioned article which could and would include a list of the boulevards and their early history. That, I think, shouldn't be to difficult to find sources for. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge proposal as a second alternative Lost on Belmont, thanks for your suggestion! You are right, Roads and expressways in Chicago seems much better article to merge with. I am not an expert with the mergers, but WP:MERGE seems to be consistent with this:
Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion.

Once we have good-enough sources, though, I think a standalone article could come into question as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Jayaguru-Shishya, here is the article as of a few weeks ago, before you deleted most of the content and all of the references. The subject of this article obviously meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines. And the Chicago Park District is not at all the same thing as the Chicago boulevard system, those are two different topics that should continue to have two different articles. I would strongly encourage other editors to refer to the long, and mostly irrational, discussion at Talk:Chicago#WP:OVERCITE / unreferenced additions, where you attempted to justify the removal of a paragraph about the boulevard system. Although on the plus side, that paragraph is better now than it was before. (It's in this section of the Chicago article, and it has even more references about the subject.) So, yeah. I'm not sure what the deal is with you and the Chicago Boulevard System, but it's still not adding up for me. (Pinging User:Alanscottwalker who was part of the previous discussion.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 18:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mudwater, in order to merit a standalone article, we would need reliable secondary sources to establish the article's notability. I am not saying this couldn't be the case in the future, but at the moment a merger, as suggested by Lost on Belmont, would be a more meaningful solution.

There are many different concepts around Chicago and its parks, just like the one you mentioned (Chicago Park District). I also mentioned a few in my proposal, and many of them even have their own Wikipedia articles. However, if the sources refer to these very names you and I have brought up, but make no mention of the "Chicago Boulevard System", I can hardly see how these sources could be used to support a standalone article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although probably rename to "Chicago Park Boulevard System". The City of Chicago nomination of "Chicago Park Boulevard System" included in the earlier version of article that Mudwater refers us to, is very convincing. It sounds like a visionary design for the city, covering crucial elements of boulevards (some being parkways?) and parks, comparable to the Boston's influential green necklace plan (which was for parks and parkways IIRC... yes, see Emerald Necklace. Putting it in just an article on "Roads and expressways" seems wrong. --do ncr am 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not the article is kept or is merged and becomes a section of another article, the title should absolutely contain the word "Park" as in Chicago Park Boulevard(s). Chicago has other signed boulevards (such as Pratt Blvd. and Ridge Blvd.) that are clearly not within the scope of the topic in question. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks doncram. The proposal to rename the article to "Chicago Park Boulevard System" is rather interesting too, and I hadn't really thought about that. But it means that the article should be backed up by new sources that support the very concept. The source about the nomination is actually about the "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District" which, I assume, would be a sub-district. We also have "new park and boulevard systems", as expressed by Bleidsten, B. J. (2016) Chicago's Park & Boulevard Systems.^[1] Actually, the previous source discusses "boulevard systems" (plural), suggesting that there are multiple systems instead of just one single. Therefore, I still doubt the justification for the article. We should first have the sources confirming that a particular concept is established, and then create an article based on those sources; not the other way.

References

^ Bledstein, Burton J., Project Director. "Chicago's Park & Boulevard System" (PDF). In the vicinity of Maxwell Street Market - Virtual Museum (tigger.uic.edu/depts/hist/hull-maxwell/). University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved April 7, 2016.((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the City of Chicago document is mostly about the district to be created, which is surely going to be separately notable assuming it happens. But from page 64 on it is about the history of the Chicago Park and Boulevard system: the idea, the 1869 state legislation, the 1871 great fire, actual development of the city, how this system compares to other Frederick Law Olmstead and Calvert Vaux-designed systems for Buffalo, Boston, Brooklyn, and other systems in Minneapolis, Cleveland etc. It has an extensive bibliography. There is tons about this topic available. It is about time Wikipedia starts covering it properly, this is the kind of thing Wikipedia can do well. It is nearly proper to snow close this as obvious, though the discussion has been useful perhaps in bringing more attention here. If I can I will soon contribute in expanding the article. --do ncr am 21:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi doncram. What source might be that? I am sorry, but I couldn't locate any source having 64 pages in this discussion. Also, we should not make any WP:OR-like conclusions that "boulevard systems" (plural, since there are plenty of these boulevard systems) can be assimilated with the wiki-user created Chicago Boulevard System / Chicago Park Boulevard System, especially if there aren't any sources to support the established existence of such terms. Why to push an article that is supported by no source? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the 248 page (in two parts) nomination document, in pdf, that is given in the City of Chicago nomination's webpage that you and I have both linked to, above. Please read it, esp from page 64 on, before commenting further in this AFD! --do ncr am 23:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources that have been brought up in this discussion have that many pages. So far, we have no source to support the existence of such a term. Indeed, Chicago is a city that consists of a lot of parks, boulevards, park districts, and boulevard districts. If we try to launch a new term that is not supported by the sources, that's WP:OR. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and this should now be "snow" closed (because now, even the OP is arguing "merge", not "delete"). No one can dispute that the boulevards, their history and so-on are a thing written about in multiple sources. There is no benefit to wiping out the history of this article by deletion. A deletion discussion is not the place to have a WP:Move or a WP:Merge discussion. Indeed, I'm almost certain that if any editor just moved the thing right now - without discussion - to some-other title as reasonable, as the present one, no one would blink an eye (but just to be safe post the proposal on the talk page, first). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Note: After my comment was posted the OP then altered their second comment to say merger was a good "alternative" (when they did not mention alternative before), but since that is the case, that's one reason why a snow close against deletion is a good idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not quite. I can hardly see how we could be facing WP:SNOW (which is an essay by the way, not a policy or a guideline) when one user states that "...the information in the article is scant and clearly isn't enough to support a standalone article at this time.", and the OP is primarily in favor of deletion. According to the WP:MERGE, as quoted above, merge "...is one of the outcome options that can be considered at..." AfD. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the quoted statement was made about the article as it existed at the time of nomination which was a single paragraph consisting of only three sentences. As has been pointed out, this situation exists because you deleted a fair bit of the existing information. My stance remains against deletion be it by merge or keep. An additional source has already been provided by doncram and there are undoubtedly others. If I may be frank, it seems like this deletion request is solely about because you don't like the references. You deleted content apparently because you didn't like the references, leaving the article bare, then nominated it for deletion because it didn't have enough references. If the city has found it eligible and nominated it for NRHP, wouldn't that suggest notability to you? The proper thing seems to be to look harder for more references if the existing ones don't meet standards. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lost on Belmont, the references were removed for a reason since they failed to verify the material. Also one primary source was removed (an office register paper). However, in the Edit Summaries[7] it's been explained all. So it's not a question whether I like the references or not, but because the references did not verify the material.

In my opinion, the subject would not merit its own article, and unless deleted, I'd consider a merge as you suggested a better idea. User doncram also suggested a rename, but it would require us to - taking into account the variety of the names (and the fact that many of these already have their own Wikipedia articles) - find reliable secondary sources to justify the topic. All the different - but related - terms might get easily confused. For example, the former version of the article[8] was supported by the City of Chicago: Logan Square Boulevards District^[1], something that already has its own Wikipedia article (Logan Square Boulevards Historic District), but the common thread between the two is still missing.

References

^ "Logan Square Boulevards District". City of Chicago.

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the references should not have been deleted from the article. One was the webpage providing the 248 page City of Chicago PDF document that explains in crystal-clear terms the relationship of the Logan Square Boulevards district (its boulevards are included in the larger system). --do ncr am 23:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what source that might be? None of the sources in the article even had 248 pages. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Given the current state of the article, until there is some Historic District to carve out, I would just merge the content. If there is a consensus that overhauls the content of the article, ping me and I will reconsider my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger:, your merge suggestion is not specific. Unfortunately, the version you probably looked at was stripped down. I restored the article and edited it slightly for clarification, to this current version. It's an article about the Chicago Park Boulevards system. There is tons about it in the complete, long, 2016 City of Chicago nomination form that is available from a City of Chicago webpage. (It would be great if you were interested in using that material to develop the article and to put in proper reference to the full nomination. I am interested in developing the article too, but I am hesitating to do much as I'd prefer for a pending arbitration clarification to be completed beforehand. It's arguably okay already for me to use an NRHP nomination document to develop an article about a non-NRHP topic, although maybe not everyone would agree.) Given this clarification, perhaps your view would be that until the proposed historic district is created, anything about the proposed historic district could be included (merged) within this article (which I think is reasonable). The overall topic--the system-- is hugely notable, IMO. Could you perhaps please clarify? I trust that you do not intend for the Chicago Park Boulevards topic to be deemed not notable, given the nomination material (see p. 64 on, especially) and merely merged into an article about current highways. Thank you for your attention. --do ncr am 20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: @TonyTheTiger:, this might be getting out of topic, but there is a discussion at the article Talk Page at the moment where all the problems have been explained (Talk:Chicago Boulevard System#Restoration of primary sources / sources that failed to verify). Anyway, not just the removed sources failed to verify the material, but I think they actually demonstrate the problem pretty well. As said before, there are many concepts around the topic, such as a) "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District", b) "Logan Square Boulevards Historic District", or c) "Chicago's historic Park Boulevard System", all of which have slightly different meaning.

For example, the "Bluestone, D. M. 1985. National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form: Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" source was about the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District - a concept that already has its own Wikipedia article - and made no references to the "Chicago Boulevard System"^[1]

Also the "City of Chicago. Logan Square Boulevards District" source fell for the same shortcomings: it was about the the Logan Square Boulevards Historic District and didn't even mention the "Chicago Boulevard System".^[2]

Those two sources actually comprehended half of the article's sources (two out of four). We should not try to launch a new term that is not supported by the sources; that'd beWP:OR. Cheers!

References

^ Bluestone, Daniel M. (July 1985). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form: Logan Square Boulevards Historic District" (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved March 17, 2014.
^ "Logan Square Boulevards District". Chicago Landmarks. City of Chicago. Retrieved March 17, 2014.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Those sources do talk at length about the boulevard system, even using the words "boulevard" and "system." Sure, they also talk about Logan Square - in the context of the larger system -- but the first discusses the larger system in its own entire section. You cannot get a merge here where no one agrees on where to merge (which is not at all surprising since a proper merge discussion was not even proposed before bringing this here and the boulevards discussed are literally the cross between streets and parks) and your objections only really seem to be to the title of the article, which would be a move, as everyone agrees and as the links at the top of this page show, there are multiple sources on the boulevards, many using the word "system". (For example, if you want to move to "Chicago boulevard system" from ""Chicago Boulevard System" you might be able to get a consensus for that, but not here).Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss China Europe Pageant[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced article (source does not exist anymore), just a feeder pageant for Miss Chinese International Pageant The Banner talk 17:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and original research.----Richie Campbell (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently no longer running either because Miss Chinese International Pageant lists all the European locations to have ceased. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the needed independent notability improvements, unlikely solid to keep by itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 2 May 2016 (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. No arguments for these article's inclusion have been made during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.N.S[edit]

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

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

Article, lapsing into an advertorial tone in some places ("They were well received in this foreign land which jump started what was soon to become a whirlwind of international success"), about a band which has a potentially valid claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for touring, but completely fails to source it properly. The sourcing here is entirely to primary sources, blogs and an online music store, with no evidence of reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. A band does not get over NMUSIC just because passage of an NMUSIC criterion is claimed -- it gets over NMUSIC when passage of an NMUSIC criterion is verified by reliable source coverage. Also adding their one album which has a separate article, whose only substantive sources are a music store, directory listings on discogs.com and user-generated non-professional reviews on eMusic and amazon.com. Delete both. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as I found nothing which is not surprising and the current article contains nothing imaginably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 April 2016 (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. Unanimous. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rory O'Keeffe[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards for notability detailed at WP:AUTHOR --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The third and fourth references do make it seem as if people are seeking out his opinion, but if that's so, why isn't there more national coverage over what he has actually done? The first two refs are just local human interest stories. The article was created by Hyggemedia (talk · contribs), who I can only assume represents his publisher, which makes it seem promotional (including the promotional picture and picture of his book). Certainly the author doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think he really meets WP:GNG either. ubiquity (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has received no reviews that I can find, and appears in only one library in WorldCat. For the person I find only his own social media. The article was clearly created as a promotion by the publisher, but presumably that lesson has been learned. In any case, this is too soon for this author, although he may become notable in the future. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. LaMona (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked around a couple of times for materials on him, after filtering out others by the same name. They appear to consist pretty uniformly of reporting by him or interviews with him that amount to reporting by him. As interesting as his career has been, I don't really see coverage of him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOUR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of the depth of coverage needed for WP:NAUTHOR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 29 April 2016 (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VimFx[edit]

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

Non-notable software - can't find any coverage in reliable sources — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recently released and still nothing suggesting better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 29 April 2016 (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. Article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Knowledge Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable online magazine. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I reviewed this at NPP and there's simply nothing to suggest better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because only 1-2 sources on that page are even independent of the subject and in detail about the subject, and even then, not that much. Subject is not notable because of this. Tom29739 ^[talk] 23:40, 1 May 2016 (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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OISE - Oxford Intensive School of English[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are very lightweight and one is a ref for the CEO and not the organisation. The other two appear to be press releases. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, this is shameless self-promotion, but possibly someone could clean up the page before deletion?ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is worth noting the previous AfD deletion of OISE Language Coaching. AllyD (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Newspaper article (it does not look like a press release) [The Telegraph] -- Sherpalibre
Comment: TV coverage (not a promo one) [MYTF1] -- Sherpalibre
Comment: Charitable organization video (in partnership with OISE) [Toutes à l’école] -- Sherpalibre
Comment: if you still think it is "shameless" self-promotion, I agree with the "cleaning up procedure" -- Sherpalibre —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this could help, here are some accreditations for the organization [British Council], [English UK], [Private Further Education for OISE Oxford], [Private Further Education for OISE Bristol] -- Sherpalibre —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Accreditation listings are no doubt important operationally, as enablers for a firm to go about its business, but are not in themselves evidence of notability in an encyclopaedic sense. AllyD (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Another link [Lycée Privé Sainte-Geneviève] -- Sherpalibre (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of passing WP:CORPDEPTH. SSTflyer 03:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the promotionalism were removed, there would be nothing left except a directory entry. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 30 April 2016 (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made over the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Kyle[edit]

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

This article appears to just barely passed notability if that. The subject has requested deletion, which of course, is never granted solely for that reason, but my understanding is that in close calls, the wishes of the subject might play a role. I will leave it up to the community to determine whether this article needs our requirements. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability including WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 19:12, 23 April 2016 (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' merge has inadequate support. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excitable Ones[edit]

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

Article about the fandom of the band 311, but reads more like a website of a fan organization than as an encyclopedic article about the fandom. No third-party reliable sources. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. dicdef fancruft. Don't even see anything there worth a merge/redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedied this as spam from a corporate account if it hadn't been listed here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 311 (band). There is a little bit of salvageable content (as WP:N is for articles rather than content, which is the only thing stopping me from going for SD under WP:CSD#A7. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 17:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also because this kind of stuff is like fashion, the lowest form of philosophy.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not enough for me to confidently suggest actual merging, delete and mention at the other article however needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2016 (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 article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth L. Green[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and searches simply found nothing at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician and researcher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2016 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Denham[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially A7 since the Daily Mail cannot be considered the best solid coverage and there's simply nothing else actually convincing of both better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here is substantive enough to constitute a WP:AUTHOR pass, and the sourcing is not solid enough to pass WP:GNG — the only non-primary source here, The Daily Mail, just glancingly namechecks his existence rather than being substantively about him. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2016 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 10:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Baabu Moshayes[edit]

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

Teams formed at television are not notable to have a article anyway. GreenCricket (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, and not national/premier league team (for defacto notability). Chrisw80 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2016 (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc-Christian Riebe[edit]

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

Certainly not notable enough. The press coverage is mostly about his company going bankrupt, the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia has been deleted meanwhile because of lack of notability. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhard Kraasch nominated this article for deletion 3 times ignoring WP:PROD rules. Buhram (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be fairly reputable third party coverage per WP:NOTABILITY. If the German Wikipedia article was non-notable, I could be convinced this one is if I saw reasons why the articles listed aren't WP:RS. Empamazing (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves may be reliable, but what do they say? E.G. the NZZ article: "Riebe, 38 Jahre alt, operiert von einem Altbau-Geschäftshaus in Sichtnähe zur Bahnhofstrasse aus. 26 Leute arbeiten für ihn. Er selbst logiert im obersten Stock": "Riebe, 38 years old, works in an old business building in sight of Bahnhofstrasse. He employs 26 people. He himself lodges in the top floor." So what? --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably Delete. The German WP usually has it right about notability about people in German speaking countries. I would need very strong evidence not to accept their greater expertise. But I find it difficult to really decide this without some information on the significance of his company. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I meant to comment earlier, Delete as none of this suggests the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that User:Empamazing has been blocked for sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2016 (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 Mila J. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split Personality (Mila J album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album: Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I was only able to find the AllMusic review. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability of the subject herself. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mila J per standard protocol. SSTflyer 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mila J: Not enough notability to support the topic having its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2016 (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 Mila J discography. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lookin' Out[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mila J discography because the song's album is also non-notable. SSTflyer 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mila J discography: For the reasons stated above. The song and parent album do not have enough notability to support either having their own page. Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2016 (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 after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warnock's dilemma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This expression may have enjoyed some limited fame in Internet forums but didn't rise to the notability of a Godwin's law. A previous AfD was closed as Keep despite poor sourcing. In the current article version, four sources are from the same book, which is itself not particularly notable. Another argument for lack of adoption: the page is quasi orphaned, being only linked from the "See also" section of Internet forum page, which means that nobody in the history of editing Wikipedia's vast coverage of the world's information and culture ever thought of linking to this concept. Deletion proposed. Failing consensus to delete, it might be, as a last resort, condensed into a paragraph and merged to Internet forum. — JFG ^talk 17:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated proposal:: It looks that the consensus is a weak keep, with little leeway to expand, as the expression never made it into general culture. Therefore I suggest to merge the contents into Internet forum, which is the only page that links here. Can we get consensus on that? — JFG ^talk 07:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Weak keep? I see a snow keep for inclusion. Also WP:GNG does not require expressions to make it to "general culture" whatever the hell that means, only significant coverage from secondary sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reason listed in prior AfD. I've found numerous secondary sources which covers the subject significantly. Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, Say Everything: How Blogging Began, What It's Becoming, and Why It Matters and Environmental Ethics: An Introduction with Readings. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is by no means significant coverage: The first book has a half-page about it, the second one only mentions it in passing, and the Environmental Ethics book quotes a totally unrelated Mr. Warnock in 1971 about the Prisoner's dilemma. — JFG ^talk 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half a page is clearly significant coverage by WP standards. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half a page in the memoirs of Nelson Mandela might deserve a mention (although perhaps not a full article). Half a page in an unremarkable marketing book does not, even by admittedly loose inclusionist WP practices. This case is merely an ITEXISTS argument. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kind of a borderline case between notable and a dictionary definition. But I'd say it's serious and worthwhile enough to keep. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to pass GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh.. It's notable, however it's not technically a dilemma. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as, although this could be better, it's enough to keep for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 April 2016 (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) — Music1201 ^talk 19:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Sequence[edit]

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

Article on a single video work by an Australian artist. Most likely COI created, as image uploader is same as article creator, and claims "own work" for image copyright. The artist is notable, with lots of refs, but the particular work is not, with one or two refs. Huge amount of ego inflation going on here. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My searches only found one good source, not much else. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Changing my vote to Merge with Shaun Gladwell after attempting to find more sources. There's not a lot, but there are sources that say this is an important work. According to the Museum of Contemporary Art: "This work is an important cornerstone in the MCA’s Collection". The COI by Gladderz is problematic; I'll comment at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Shaun_Gladwell_et_al Mduvekot (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split the difference, redirect to artist page: Shaun Gladwell. If enough sources accumulate there, spin out summary style, though I doubt it'll be necessary. czar 14:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI too would agree with Merge rather than delete.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Shaun Gladwell article says that it set an Australian record for video art[9] and was the first installation of its kind in Australia.[10] Remove the uncited most well known sentence though. If merging the last sentence and the description would fit under art market. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This paper from Columbia University refers to Storm Sequence numerous times in a peer reviewed academic literature survey on Gladwell. https://www.academia.edu/6064417/Shaun_Gladwell_Critique_Gesture_and_Skateboarding_with_Charles_Green_ Zenopharmakon (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zenopharmakon and Mduvekot, I made the entry for this page and paraphrased the same Grogan essay re the status of "Storm Sequence". Croggan (and Green) write: "Storm Sequence is probably Gladwell's best-known work" pp 126. Groggan then footnotes the claim with recorded (Auction) secondary market value of this work etc. I instead, used 'arguably': "The video is arguably the most well know work of Gladwell's artworks" "Arguably", because this academic paper was written a few years ago and certain claims within it can now be contested. Apologies to HappyValleyEditor for this looking VERY much like COI puffery and self declaration. The statement was in fact quoted from a good source, and yet this artwork's status is still "arguable". Maybe delete the line regardless for neutrality? Additionally: The artist Shaun Gladwell and user:gladderz are not 'one and the same'. Changing my user name to alleviate this self-inflicted confusion! Will not be editing the page before working out COI issues in any case. Gladderz (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. As mentioned above the comment, "This work is an important cornerstone in the MCA’s Collection." found here : [11] goes a long way to showing true notability WP:N for this video artwork in and of itself. For the Museum of Contemporary Art to house what some describe as a "cornerstone" truly sets the artwork apart from others. I have added several other references to improve the article. It should be kept in wikipedia. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems enough to keep separately. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 April 2016 (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. Evidence of notability has not been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patafunctions[edit]

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

This is a very carefully written article with lots of references that seeks to prop up a single work by an artist. The problem is that the text is loaded with references to anything other than the work itself, which has very dubious notability as it is essentially a small run publication for an exhibtion. Article is a huge long essay essentially. Article creator has user name shockingly similar to Author of Patafunctions. With all the obfuscation goign on, like with COI. I suggest it is better ot blow this one out of the water and start over-- if needed. (the same may also be true of the gigantic Shaun Gladwell page. There seems to be abit of a campaign going on. ) HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article about an illusion/publication (as part of an art exhibition), inspires us to question the rigid confines of notability criterion, such as WP:BKCRIT. Describing an experimental text which is also a publication and yet an illusion, it lies in the article space and incorporates influences as diverse as WP:COI and WP:OR. With not enough references to satisfy WP:GNG, it is a demonstration of an emotionless travel to deletion through the medium of AfD, and yet leaves the editor wondering whether to cite or not to cite the answer to life, the universe, and everything. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Smokes, this is the most articulate delete vote I've ever seen. I bow down to your awesomeness. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's hilarious. I read it several times just for the sheer enjoyment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to write something about the exegesis of cultural hermeneutics in existential artistico-metaphysical dialogue, but decided simply to say that a load of nonsense wrapped up with a few primary sources and a link to a dead artist's work doesn't add up to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but NPOV with criticism from supporters and detractors: Judd's article is for: https://www.artlink.com.au/articles/4334/shaun-gladwell-the-lacrima-chair-collection2B/ Whereas MacDonald is totally against http://johnmcdonald.net.au/2015/shaun-gladwell/ Zenopharmakon (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentZenopharmakon: with respect, the two refs you mention are not very strong. The first is one sentence, and the second is two sentences and it does not even mention "Patafunctions" directly, just obliquely. The second is very fine writing that would fit very nicely into the main article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor, I'm all for inclusion of the John McDonald criticism within the article itself. McDonald is a very powerful voice in Australian art criticism and seems to enjoy critically engaging/demolishing Gladwell. McDonald's comments also intended to be included in Gladwell's bio under a "criticisms" section. However, I'm no longer editing the page(s) before working out COI issues. Gladderz (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article features the clearest description of this book/artwork but cannot be used due to its Author's COI and clearly placed disclosure statement at the top of the article. Kit Messham-Muir is the self appointed 'official' Gladwell biographer/interlocuter/collaborator. http://theconversation.com/shaun-gladwell-is-returning-to-sydney-and-may-not-shed-tears-37348 Other forums are debating the books content rather than seeing it as an artwork etc. Gladderz (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's too soon to suggest a solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:50, 1 May 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Shankaran Nair[edit]

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

Incredible puff piece. This is the version I found and which seems to be more than sufficiently sourced. Until I started looking at the "sources". Many did not even mention Nair. Others were comments posted after newspaper or blog articles. Some others mentioned Nair in passing, but did not support any of the statements made. Perhaps Nair is the statesman he likes us to think he is and perhaps he's notable. However, after cleaning this article with this edit, I think that the only thing we can do is to blow this up. If he's notable after all, it will be easier to start a new article from scratch. Also please note that the article was created with this single edit, followed by a typo correction, which were the two only edits ever of this editor. Delete per WP:TNT. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator is very kind. I looked at this source which is to support "In the same year, Nair was involved advising Poly Energy, a subsidiary of the China Poly Group Corporation, in an abortive takeover bid for the Kurdistan focused Turkish E&P company Genel Energy.[citation needed] Poly Energy's offer of US$2 billion was outbid by Vallares" (until someone slapped a cn tag in the middle). It's a bit unfortunate that it took us two years to find this thing. —SpacemanSpiff 10:43, 30 April 2016 (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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bageshwari (magazine)[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Relatively new magazine. No independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." Article dePRODded by anonymous IP without reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable magazine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent in-depth coverage that I can find. Not my native language though. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulating the microflora of the gut[edit]

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

Essay-like article. Not encyclopedic. — Music1201 ^talk 09:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the current article is an essay full of WP:SYNTH, but one should consider potential, not just current state. However, none of the impressive-looking sources deal with manipulation of the microflora, they are just studies on its effects. The article goes far into WP:OR territory by suggesting to intentionally alter it.

There could be potential for a merge with Gut flora but it seems redundant to me. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy Just a WP:Essay. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why not merge it with Gut flora? Even if there's not a lot that's not redundant, Gut flora has it's own issues that a few more sources would go towards sorting out (not like these sources would solve it, but they'd be a small step in a good direction). I'd be happy to take the time to do the merge since the original author doesn't seem to be a regular contributor anymore. Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that a "source merge" could be useful. I do not see salvageable content in the text, though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a source merge? AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made that up. I meant "using the sources of article A to reference article B" - without merging actual content, in that case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing actually convincingly different to suggest keeping. Restore and Draft only if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect No need to merge. If we are just talking about the sources then there is no need to merge. Heliobird can use the sources just as a matter of editing procedure. AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that the sourcing doesn't help in the subject passing our notability guidelines. —SpacemanSpiff 08:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaan Solar[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability required by WP:GNG. Offered instead is a blizzard of WP:CITESPAM comprised of primary sources created by subject and noise-level listings. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Msnicki has said 'A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vivaan Solar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.' But i have added variety of secondary resources including government sources, what else can be done to improve the wiki page.

Joydeep ghosh (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain the problem and what would be needed about a week ago [12] on the article talk page. It wasn't helpful? You didn't ask any followup questions. Msnicki (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the editor Msnicki i ask again what else can be done to improve the article. Let me explain this to you. In India not many companies are interested in spending money on promotion in any media, only now some have started to use social media as its free. In this page only the 'government support' section is where you wont find mention of Vivaan Solar, but the support by govt. under various initiatives. You may question it, but i thinks its important to include it as govt. support is the reason for many companies venturing into solar power in India. The govt. support is both the incentive and subsidy. In rest all sections you will find ample mention of Vivaan Solar coroborated with secondary sources. Whay else do i need to do to imoprove the article.

11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)11:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joydeep ghosh (talk • contribs)

To the editor Msnicki i ask again what can be done to improve the article, will removing the section 'goverment support' help?

05:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)05:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)05:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joydeep ghosh (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources that I found. 41 links in the page and almost none to none are good sources. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contest the ThePlatypusofDoom and ask this person to please go through the links and read with patience to find reference to vivaan solar. some of the links are govt sources, which can be considered as notable.

Joydeep ghosh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this by asking the editor Msnicki is to please understand that this page is about particular company which is into solar business, its not like hollywood/bollywood where huge lot of info may be available. This company is a mid sized company, but that doesnot mean a wikipage cant be created. The bulk of content added in the wiki page from primary source can be corroborated from secondary sources. Also the total number of secondary links added are more than primary links; which should be enough to prove the content added is not fake. Request you to take your time and read through the secondary sources that talk about the same thing as the primary sources. If primary and secondary source talk about same thing or secondary source does well to corroborate the primary sources; what else needs to be done to make this page notable. I have asked you earlier, and i ask you again, what can be done to improve the page.

08:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joydeep ghosh (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are some sources but this is still questionable overall, somewhat newly founded company with nothing confidently suggesting keeping. SwisterTwister talk 19:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this by asking the User talk:SwisterTwister is to please understand that this page is about particular company which is into solar business, its not like hollywood/bollywood where huge lot of info may be available. This company is a mid sized company, but that doesnot mean a wikipage cant be created. The bulk of content added in the wiki page from primary source can be corroborated from secondary sources. Also the total number of secondary links added are more than primary links; which should be enough to prove the content added is not fake. Request you to take your time and read through the secondary sources that talk about the same thing as the primary sources. If primary and secondary source talk about same thing or secondary source does well to corroborate the primary sources; some of which are govt sources, what else needs to be done to make this page notable. Let me explain this to you in another way. In India not many companies are interested in spending money on promotion in any media, only now some have started to use social media as its free. In this wiki page only the 'government support' section is where you wont find mention of Vivaan Solar, but the support by govt. under various initiatives. You may question it, but i thinks its important to include it as govt. support is the reason for many companies venturing into solar power in India. The govt. support is both the incentive and subsidy. In rest all sections you will find ample mention of Vivaan Solar coroborated with secondary sources. What else do i need to do to improve the article.

21:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Joydeep ghosh (talk)

It's not necessary or helpful to keep repeating the same lengthy argument about the subject being in the solar business, etc., especially as all of this is basically irrelevant to WP:NOTABILITY, the only question we consider at WP:AFD. You may find helpful guidance on notability at WP:GNG and on how to argue your position at WP:DISCUSSAFD. No one doubts your sincerity nor does anyone appear to doubt that what your article reports is likely true. The reason we are recommending the page be deleted is because we do not believe there are sources to establish notability, which we define in a more technical way than in common use. This cannot be fixed simply by writing a better article. It can only be fixed by finding better sources, which don't appear to exist. Please follow the links I've given you; I think they will help explain the problem. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joydeep gosh, you only have ONE vote. You do not need to repeat this. Your argument is logical, but this is not notable, and you can't "Make it better". Notability can't be changed by the editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Ritter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as Ritter has never made a senior appearance in a professional league. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails 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) 08:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 29 April 2016 (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 UCL Institute of Neurology#Departments. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dementia Research Centre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated because the article contains no evidence that the Centre has any intrinsic notability; all the citations are internal and do not demonstrate any achievements that cannot be attributed to its staff or to its parent department or institution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Validcharm (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dementia Research Centre had some formatting errors, so I closed it and reopened the discussion using the nominator's rationale. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I could find one source, but I think it does not really bring notability - it is about how the center was funded for. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UCL Institute of Neurology#Departments per Dubbin below - which is obviously better than pure deletion (WP:CHEAP). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UCL Institute of Neurology as a compromise? Selected, properly sourced information from the current page could be added to that page as a section.Dubbin^{u | t | c} 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 29 April 2016 (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't No Room for Talkin'[edit]

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

an unreferenced tracklist. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lack of references in the article cannot be used to determine notability. WP:NOTE states "Article content does not determine notability", and a simple google search yields plenty of references that agree with the article. I'm not going to make a vote because I don't know what our guidelines say about when to include track lists and when not to. -- RM 02:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 29 April 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Chamas[edit]

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

Actor who has had no sources on here for over 10 years! Anyway, I am having trouble finding any info about this guy. (I had to remove the bias part of him being the son of a great actor!) Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this was actually PRODed in 2007 and it should've been deleted then, nothing at all for the applicable notability. Certainly nothing suggesting better improvements, SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see the notability here. Are the TV shows he was in notable in some fashion? I also am struggling to find sources to verify the information in the article and to establish notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure-it seems his father his a dubbing actor though. Wgolf (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2016 (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) — Music1201 ^talk 20:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colégio Anglo Drummond[edit]

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

This is an irrelevant institution in terms of importance, being only known inside its hometown. Always keep on asking "why?". Maringaense (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus has been that all secondary schools are notable. This has been consistently applied to American and British schools. If we do not apply it worldwide we will just increase systemic uneven coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and why not? One could ask "why?" about 90% of Wikipedia. Inclusion of this topic makes more sense than many and this article is relatively well written, structured, etc. giso6150 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, and there simply aren't enough reliable sources to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - I was using the find sources links at the top of this page, but the article name doesn't match the school's current name. I will search for sources in the morning if I have time. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was closed this morning by User:SwisterTwister as "speedy keep as secondary schools are always kept as notable". Whereas:
- The guidelines at WP:SK do not incorporate this as a valid reason for a speedy keep;
- User:SwisterTwister is not an administrator;
- The guideline at WP:DPR#NAC states that a deletion discussion closed by a user who is not an administrator may be reverted and reopened by an administrator giving reasons for doing so; and
- I, an administrator, have formed the opinion that it is right and appropriate in the circumstances to reopen the discussion, now, therefore
This discussion is reopened and relisted, with all !votes cast to state standing, and
In view of this relisting, will be granted a fresh 7-day listing period effective from today. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as secondary schools are notable. ThePlatypusofDoom Talk 13:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested to see evidence of sources that demonstrate that notability in relation to this school, ThePlatypusofDoom, as I'm currently searching for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, the consensus is that high schools are almost always considered notable, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most are indeed kept, Crh23, but if a school is notable then it should be possible to demonstrate that notability (notability being a policy, whereas SCHOOLOUTCOMES is just a summary of common outcomes) - hence the wording of WP:WPSCH/AG#N, which says they are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the standing consensus that high school articles are usually valid for inclusion, detailed at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:WPSCH/AG#N. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The standard consensus has a purpose, which is to prevent hundreds of thousands of afds of high schools and elementary schools, and simply divide them into two groups, the high schools, where an article will be kept, and the elementary schools, where it normally will not. It's not precisely a consensus to say that one group is notable and the other not, but to say that we are going to treat one group as being notable and the other not, as a matter of convenience. But it is rational on grounds of actual notability also: when we did consider afds on schools, most articles on established high school were able to show it, because of having notable alumni and championship teams, and their major role in their communities. Most elementary schools were not able, having only mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire content of the article at present appears to come from the school's own website (and looks to be a copyright violation). I have looked for independent sources to use instead or to supplement the school's website, but so far have been unable to find enough coverage to base an article on. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Harriet Tubman. Sandstein 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Harriet Tubman (Salisbury, Maryland)[edit]

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

Non-notable sculpture by a non-notable artist. Notable subject: yes. References are two primary sources (University PR) and two secondary sources, one of which is a sentence long. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (briefly) to the article on Harriet Tubman, who is clearly notable, whereas the statue is probably of limited notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Peterkingiron. The statute isn't notable based on the local-only coverage. This could be turned into one or two well-written sentences in the article about Tubman herself. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--aside Page creator MurielMary has created several others: for example this. Individually they are weak pages, but together it would be quite a strong statement on the legacy and memorializing of this important historical figure. Which is to say, perhaps there should be an addiitonal Statues of Harriet Tubman page, along with the individual pages? What do you think, MurielMary HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyValleyEditor: We can't have an article about Statues of Harriet Tubman because that subject isn't notable, either. Is there a book about the many statues of Harriet Tubman? No. Tubman herself is the notable subject and this content belongs there. The only limit you'll run into on the applicable section is the point at which discussion of these statues is undue coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: There may not currently be a book about memorials to Tubman, but last year a Master's thesis was written on the topic, and with the increasing interest in Tubman through her nomination to appear on American currency, it's not unlikely that such a volume could be written. Here's the link to the thesis FYI: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1368&context=cc_etds_theses MurielMary (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Salisbury University article. Folklore1 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and discussion. I take the point that this statue may not be notable based on the local-only coverage, however public art commemorating women, and particularly African-American women, is rare and therefore worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia in some form. As HappyValleyEditor notes, there are a number of pages on statues and monuments to Tubman. Perhaps they could all be combined into one page such as "List of monuments and memorials to Harriet Tubman", along the lines of List of new memorials to Robert Hooke 2005 – 2009?? MurielMary (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as that's enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 29 April 2016 (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D-Natural[edit]

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

I declined the speedy nomination, but the article still does not have references and I could not quickly find anything. Note that this is the translation of the French Wikipedia article, but that one has no references either. Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I have requested the original French article to be deleted for this very reason. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a stronger claim of notability might be possible here — I don't know whether either "D-Natural est mon nom" or "D-Natural Is Back" could ever have been classified as an actual hit of any sort, but I've definitely heard them before. And if MusiquePlus really dedicated an entire special to him, then that would cover off NMUSIC #12 if it could be sourced. But I'm having trouble finding the referencing needed to support it — I searched both Google and ProQuest, and ran direct searches on Le Devoir, La Presse and Voir, and came up completely empty except for (a) one glancing namecheck of his "notoriously awful" video for "D-Natural est mon nom", and (b) this, which isn't even close to enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Plus "His style of rap and personality is confusing. Many are uncertain if he is being serious or if it is only a parody" poses WP:NPOV issues, if we can't source that properly — and "Today, he no longer raps, but works as a factor for Canada Post." (factor = bad translation of facteur, or "mailman") poses WP:BLPPRIVACY issues, because there's just no way in hell that we can ever reliably source that as being true. So even if he can be sourced over WP:NMUSIC better than anything I'm finding, we're still better off blowing this up than we are keeping an article this bad just because improvement might be possible — the fact that this is a literal word-for-word translation of the existing French article blows my mind, because this is a bloody terrible piece of work that shouldn't have lasted ten years over there either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find the quality of sourcing needed to get him over NMUSIC for something. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A7. Non-admin closure "Pepper" @ 00:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil khattar[edit]

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

Article on likely non-notable person created by agent of said person: "This page has been created by me ... I represent Media vantage a Talent Management Firm Sahil Khattar is an exclusive artist contracted by us." References are very poor. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the refs turned out to be faked, in essence. They were just top-level URLS. No Specific coverage of subject. Deleted. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2016 (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. No arguments for this article's retention have been made during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Chen (pilot)[edit]

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

Let's see, there are 4 references. The 1st is the official site of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the 3rd the official site of CCTV News, and the 4th the official site of Hunan Satellite TV. Not surprisingly, these 3 pages don't mention the individual at all. Only the second, the official site of a "Sunshine Enterprise", does, but the first sentence reads "Sunshine Enterprise, Inc., was founded in August 1998 in Memphis, Tennessee by Wei Chen"... self-promotion? The 2 external links are both related to the subject. Timmyshin (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible hoax. Sources provide no corroboration of information claimed on article. I can't find any other sources on the internet either. Der yck C. 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's a hoax, since I found a few interviews on him on very specialized aviation websites like [13] [14], but really not sure if these interviews are independent, or notable enough to establish notability. "First Chinese Citizen to circumnavigate the globe in a single engine plane" sounds impressive, but also a little trivial. There must be millions of "First Chinese citizen to..." in the world. I think we need someone familiar with aviation to take a look. Timmyshin (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, weak delete per WP:TNT unless someone wants to brush up the article. Der yck C. 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 29 April 2016 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Basnet[edit]

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

Self-created, promotional article that does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Only sources are the subject's own blogs/publications etc Melcous (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no sign of significance/importance, much less of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing of value here. —swpb^T 18:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. Not a single source exists discussing the article subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2016 (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. Uncontested Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Monsoon[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable collection of short stories, self-created by author and sourced only to his websites. Speedy tag deleted after multiple warnings by IP editor with no previous edits. Melcous (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability and I can't find any independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements, too soon and nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single independent website discusses this book. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not currently enough reliably sourced content for an article, and that the allegations that gave rise to this one should be covered in the existing 9/11-related articles until there is more to write about. Sandstein 15:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi role in September 11 attacks[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Until the so called "documents" which talk about this role come to light. Until then everything is pure speculation. We can have an article on this when something substantial has been mentioned by WP:RS until then this is merely a coatrack with one sentence about the Saudi role coupled with a large amount of WP:OR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not yet an independently notable topic meriting an article. Any non-redundant material can be moved to Responsibility for the September 11 attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Very coatracky. Much POV. Brustopher (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed WP:TOOSOON for all this speculative content. If these allegations become substantiated one day, they should be added to Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001#Redacted sections is where any information about the "28 pages" should go to. IMO, having a separate 9/11-accusation article just for Saudi-Arabia feels like an attack page, especially if none of the other alleged perpetrators mentioned in Responsibility for the September 11 attacks has one and if this is all based on speculation around unpublished documents. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, too early for this article.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, very probably true, but unsubstantiated and not properly referenced. As above: WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RS and WP:OR--Petebutt (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petebutt:Besides the ones I used in the article, I've provided plenty of sources here, as you see. Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as page creator): I'd like to support my 'Keep' using following reasons:

The article is backed by several reliable sources which are directly related to the subject and hence the WP:OR speculation is not sticky here.
The WP:CRYSTALBALL claim does not apply here, because as we know, per crystal ball "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation" and all what we have here are some well sourced facts related to the role of Saudi government in the event. Then the policy reads: " All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Although the subject is not an "anticipated event", it's clearly 'verifiable' and 'of sufficiently wide interest'.
WP:TOOSOON which is just an essay reads: " If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered," while it does not apply here because we've got enough sources for the subject.

To clarify the issues, I invite you to take a look at the sources directly about the subject

Rudy Giuliani suggests Saudi Arabia WAS involved in 9/11 attacks and reveals he was offered $10million... by Daily Mail.
Maher on Saudi involvement in 9/11: 28 pages prove ‘we definitely attacked the wrong country’ by Rawstory.
How US covered up Saudi role in 9/11 by New York Post.
9/11 Victims, Saudi Arabia & Iran -- De-link Compensation from Accountability by Nationalreview.

Do you want more? yes? Here you are:

New allegations of Saudi involvement in 9/11 by CNN.
Obama under pressure to release secret pages of 9/11 report 'showing Saudi Arabia financed attacks' by Telegraph.
Movement pursues the ‘real story’ of Saudi involvement in Sept. 11 by Washington Times.
28 pages: the controversy over Saudi Arabia and 9/11, explained by VOX.
'Document 17': Declassified US govt memo suspects multiple Saudi links to 9/11 attacks by Russia Today.
Some other reliable sources!

I think the article just needs to be completed using above sources. Mhhossein (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename. Per Mhhussein's sources. Well covered. However Rename to more neutral "Alleged Saudi involvement in September 11 Attacks". Or "Release of Classified documents of possible Saudi involvement in September 11 Attacks". Caseeart (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mhhossein (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON Orser67 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON specifically only applies when (and because) there are no verifiable sources. Here there are many many highly qualified verifiable sources. Caseeart (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to add this fresh source to the list. This one is also noteworthy. Mhhossein (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't set up a new page making these kinds of allegations on the basis of two senators talking to the press. Repeated, reliable sources, well explained in the article with multiple independent sourcing, will be required. Preferably peer-reviewed academic sources (our highest standard). Until that material is fully released we're just violating TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL. Merge the two senators' comments to another appropriate article, delete the remainder. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is misused conjecture based on a few comments in one interview. It's pure conspiracy theory.--MONGO 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all still questionable for its own solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but should be written, as in fact for now there is only the lead and the aftermath.Axxxion (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if we understand in future that Saudi have had no connection to the 11 September attacks, we need this article because it is a notable subject supported by many many reliable sources and Mhhossein presented some of them. I think it's not too soon because of the sources and we can have the article. I see that notable analysts such as Porter and Bahgat (not just two senators) have discussed the role of Saudi Arabia, so why not having it here? Another possible scenario is that we have it as a separate section of the main article, then we have to split it as it's large enough. So, we'd better keep it.Saff V. (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The reasons listed for the deletion have already been rebutted by the article's creator as inapplicable to the article in question. There is therefore no substantial evidence that the article should deleted in the first place. IMHO, the real reason for this article being brought up for deletion is because some editors have personal "feelings" about the content in the article. They disagree with the content because it goes against the "narrative" that they themselves believe about 9/11. Regardless of any reliable sources to the contrary, these people will always revert to their narrow personal beliefs and will continuously seek to hide from any reliable evidence that is provided. Because WP is an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we must remember that our own personal beliefs about a subject are irrelevant. We must refer only to the reliable sources that we have. Likewise, we cannot "censor" information (which I have seen done on the 9/11 attacks article) from reliable sources simply because it contradicts information from a previous source. This brings to mind the many current events articles such as the Boston Bombings, the San Bernardino bombings, the Paris Attacks, etc., on which WP editors did not at all hesitate to make rapid edits shortly after the event occurred, regardless of whether or not the information in the sources proved to be accurate. As new information came out, old, incorrect information and their sources were removed and replaced by new information and sources. Imagine if, in these instances, editors had refused to update the information in these articles with new information and sources simply because the new information contradicted the old information that was currently there. We would never make any intellectual progress, the encyclopedia would become outdated and inaccurate, and we would again be stuck with a "narrative" that may or may not be the truth (according to secondary sources; we cannot independently verify information ourselves, WP:OR). This ties back to the "conspiracy theory" argument, that "this is just a conspiracy theory". However, similar to above, whether or not this truly is just a "conspiracy theory" is irrelevant for the purposes of the encyclopedia. If reliable secondary sources provide information claimed to be factual, then to us, this information is necessarily factual until proven otherwise (again, be careful of WP:OR). Even if contradicting sources exist, I strongly believe that it is worthwhile to keep both sets of information (in some form or another), even if only for a historical reference to the contradiction itself.

“

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.

”

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

— TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 15:28, 30 April 2016 (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 Kareo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rodrigues[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The only source providing substantial coverage is a 3 part interview at http://www.sramanamitra.com/. Interviews are fairly useless as reliable sources and I don't think the site meets RS either. The others are brief mentions or don't even mention him e.g. [15]. Searches for other potential sources have not turned up anything suitable. SmartSE (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of this article. I think I'm also being accused of having a conflict of interest, which I hope doesn't diminish the value of my obvious Keep vote, but I'd like to chime in anyway. Dan Rodrigues founded two companies, Scour and Kareo that have received media coverage, and which are accordingly on Wikipedia. Sources for this article included mentions of him in the NY Times[[16]], the Orange County Register[[17]] and CNET[[18]], in addition to a longer interview[[19]] which provides a good deal of useful biographical information. I can't speak to how reliable it is, but it seems quite detailed and professional enough. All this information is readily available online with a Google search. I just added another source from page 1 on Google,[[20]] to source his age when founding Scour, his first company, and how he transitioned from running a consulting company to his current company Kareo. I think there's enough there now, but can add more if necessary. I'll wait for the group's consensus.Timtempleton (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so it is irrelevant whether or not he founded notable companies. The crucial word in your rationale is 'mentions' because as I stated in the nomination, mentions are of no use for determining notability. The source you added is an interview in a specialist industry publication, which isn't much use either. SmartSE (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that I added another source? I can look for some more if it's not enough, but let's see what someone else thinks.Timtempleton (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I took a look at the sources and reviewed the third-party ones that actually mention Rodrigues in more than passing fashion. (I did not review the WSJ sources as they’re behind a paywall.) In all I see one source that plainly is the kind of thing that helps establish notability (a 2008 interview at salon.com), one that might (an interview at electronichealthreporter.com) and two that don’t, by reason of scope or source reliability.

Startup, Survival, Scaling: Kareo CEO Dan Rodrigues – blog post, uncertain / unknown reliability

Agent's Role In Music Site May Be Shift In Rights War – NY Times – RS, but just a couple quotes; not direct coverage of Rodrigues

HIT Thought Leader Highlight: Dan Rodrigues, Kareo – an interview of him in an on line industry news site; perhaps RS.

Why Scour is not the new Napster – Salon.com – RS, direct interview; but old

I echo the observation that being CEO of a notable company does not make one notable. I looked around and found a good deal about his companies, which of course usually includes his name as president or founder, but not much about him personally. What’s there is not nothing – but to me it’s not enough. Absent more sources covering him, versus incidental mentions or company coverage, I’d be inclined to delete. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source #14 (SoCalTech) [[21]] is a somewhat detailed profile of Rodrigues that wasn't listed above, and it's a good reliable source. There are a couple of videos posted on him in his Google search results but they look like they were posted by companies that invest in them, so I skipped them. I'll start a Google alert and keep my eye out for more coverage. Timtempleton (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and integrated info from a more recent (Aug. 2015) Rodrigues interview, from LATechwatch.com. It's source #16 now.[[22]]. It's a company profile, but there's some personal info there, but I didn't use all of it as it was info of secondary interest, such as his favorite LA bar.Timtempleton (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable, decent article, it might just need more editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's not a clear path either way so, considering there's no firm perspective of votes, I'm relisting again with hopes of a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps Redirect to Kareo as this is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability apart from the company itself, thus for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement between multiple editors on whether WP:BLP1E applies to this article, in particular, whether this is a biography. Let us try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Lyne[edit]

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

Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as well. Further noting that since the article was nominated for deletion, the article creator has changed the name of the article, possibly in an attempt to circumvent 1E (see his comments on 1E below). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF, not circumvent but article improvement. According to that logic, the Boston, Massachusetts article should be deleted because the article was changed to Boston. The editor, WV, has previously been reported to ANI as a drama seeker and problematic editor and has been blocked before. I am sorry there is still daily misbehavior by WV. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As of today, ten days after the murder, the news cycle on the murder has died to a slow crawl. Both Yahoo and Google searches find only a small smattering of updated news stories online (mostly local from the Seattle area), the rest are days old, in most cases, 4 days old and older. This shows how the incident is little more than a news story, certainly not an ongoing one, and that fact further bolsters the argument that the article is not encyclopedic, rather, a news item. This again brings up how Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As such, the article has no enduring, encyclopedic value and should be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is reason to delete the President Rutherford Hayes article because no news stories on him for decades. No! Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge, or userfy - It is too soon to tell whether or not this case will make headline news. However, by userfying the article, it can be easily resurrected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Lyne worked at Swedish Medical Center, this article can redirect to it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a horrible crime, however it's something that isn't necessarily notable. The crime is horrid, but not every crime, or every victim, is notable enough for an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree that we should mention her as a notable person or employee at Swedish Hospital in its article and give the explanation there. That, and/or mention the crime in Wikipedia's current events (daily news section) for the day it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because it meets the requirements even though this person is not famous - There are currently 20 citations in the article that come from 7 countries. A Google search show 134 citations from at least 10 countries. The nominator says it fails WP:GNG. Actually, it meets it by a wide margin. Specifically

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

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

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

The usual Wikipedia custom is to rename the article "Murder of Ingrid Lyne". But that is not a deletion, merely a rename. If Ingrid Lyne were a TV episode, then Wikipedia custom is no question keep.

Wikipedia is not a vote so this careful analysis shows it should be a keep, even a speedy keep. If we don't want Wikipedia to be the porn star, video game, TV episode, high school, big murder website, then there needs to be a systemwide discussion. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see articles, some noting unique information, without doing an exhaustive search from

Belgium
United States
Brazil
Australia
India
Romania
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Sorry for the flags but that is a Wikipedia tradition. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. All three show how this article is rightly being considered for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. WP:1E is for a person. This is an event, Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Not news does not prohibit news. Otherwise the 2016 Brussels Airport bombing would be deleted because it is news. Too soon is not applicable because it meets GNG. Sorry, I do not make the rules. But we must follow them. Need to change the rules if you want your way. I will help you if you have a reasonable method to change Wikipedia.. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable. The article is a biography. Sorry, I don't make the rules, either, and policy is not only clear on this, but the article is very likely to be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whiskeymouth. Caden ^cool 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whiskey's analysis is spot on. Over time, the article will get longer but for now the name change resolves the BLP1E issue and the numerous references and external links make it crystal clear that this topic has already garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Whiskey has added a good deal of sourcing to the article (both local and international). Also added has been coverage from near and far of (a) this case as an archetype for the dangers of online dating and (b) coverage of public officials' reactions to the outpouring of "recycling" jokes. It's all getting significant coverage in reliable sources David in DC (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:David in DC, do consider moving this comment to the bottom of the page, or repeating it there (since someone has already responded to it here). This keeps the debate roughly chronological, very useful to subsequent and closing editors, who need to see how opinion in an AFD shifts as evidence is added, sources added, and article expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage does not an encyclopedia article make. Wikipedia is not a news source nor is it a website that regurgitates and compiles what news sources report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, that is a truly bizarre argument. OF COURSE Wikipedia articles can be created based on "what news sources report".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply, as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on news" and WP:NOTNEWS is completely different. An article only stays on Wikipedia based on its enduring notability. It is too soon to determine how notable this murder is, considering how recent this is and there have been other run-of-the-mill murder-and-dismemberment cases in the recent past (like the San Diego case that I mention below). Parsley Man (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the reasons stated already; this is becoming a very heavily-covered story in the media and the trial will likely become another media-event. 68.19.7.65 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavily", how, exactly? Other than a few things trickling out in the local Seattle news as follow-up (and the wire services mirroring same) the story is pretty much widespread-dead for days now. Trial will probably be covered, but no one can know how big it will be, and we shouldn't speculate, and can't predict per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a news-story article that isn't likely to get any bigger or go much further. Hence, the reason why WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM, as policies, exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You know, a similar murder happened in my hometown of San Diego, where a woman was murdered and cut up, with the body parts being stuffed into a suitcase. Now, I would like to know why that doesn't have an article while this one does. Parsley Man (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that case, beyond a few days' news cycle, wasn't any more notable than this one? (I assume you question was rhetorical) :-). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Also, I would also like to add that the San Diego murder was also recent. Parsley Man (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think remember reading something about it a seek or so ago. See? Like most news stories of this kind: shocking but soon forgotten. Which brings me to another thought about why this article shouldn't exist:WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego murder has no article as it is not notable. Notamemorial bans memorial articles. This is not a memorial article. Are you trying to ban the 9-11 article because it memorializes it.....NOOOOO! For some reason, this event is covered in many countries, even non-English speaking countries while many murders are not. Maybe because it is notable by Wikipedia standards? Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it's gruesome and shocking news sells. clpo13_(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego murder was gruesome too. Why no article there? Also, Whiskeymouth, you're not making a very good case for yourself. Just because multiple countries are covering doesn't exactly mean it's that notable by Wikipedia standards. Parsley Man (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am surprised by how many articles there are on this. It's a nasty crime, but, at the risk of sounding insensitive, not particularly unusual as far as murders go. Dismemberment isn't an uncommon way to dispose of a body. clpo13_(talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean lone victims who were dismembered? Or serial killers who dismember their victims? Parsley Man (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fairly rare, the first one probably moreso (though many serial killers are unknown). But still many cases, in sheer numbers. All very uncommon next to billions of butchered breakfast animals, and all lacking the grisliness/gruesomeness/newsworthiness of human torsos where humans buy breakfast. The facts are sketchy, but that doesn't stop Sweeney Todd from being an article. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons stated already.
Keep - Heavily covered in American national news + international sources per @Whiskeymouth:. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per rationale stated by Whiskeymouth. This article meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage in multiple local, national, and international publications and websites. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless it's turned into an article about the whole thing. Simply changing the title doesn't cut it. As the passive role, hers is smaller than her killer's, who doesn't deserve a bio from one event, either. Neither does the lead investigator, the judge, the witness, the juror, the bailiff, the reporter, the accomplice nor the sheriff. But there's potentially a place for facts on everyone here, so long as they're pertinent to the widely-but-not-deeply covered case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:HEY demand has been met, the article has in fact been moved to Murder of Ingrid Lyne, an article about a murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting closer. Still has a biography infobox, the lead still treats her as the topic and the Backgrounds section still skews the focus onto her. "Disappearance and death" subtitle implies the main title is still "Ingrid Lyne". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guidance under WP:VICTIM seems pretty clear and on point. I'm also not seeing any lasting effect or wide-scale geographic impact that might qualify the murder under WP:EVENT. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that WP:LASTING impact is not required, neither is "wide-scale geographic impact" (WP:GEOSCOPE). What is required is "significant or WP:INDEPTH coverage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article fails WP:VICTIM but also WP:PORNSTAR and WP:POLITICIAN. This is because the article is about an event, not a victim, pornstar (people involved are a nurse and a homeless man), or politician (nurse and homeless man). It does qualify under event as evidenced by worldwide coverage, even in the Italian language press. Therefore, Keep. Again, I understand the frustration that some have but such frustration should be discussed systemwide in Wikipedia regarding what articles we want. If we want to no longer have murders and porn stars and video games, except for the truly historic murders and porn stars, then this is a valid discussion point but not an AFD. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to pass this one by, it seemed merely to be an unusually macabre boyfriend murder, widely covered out of mere ghoulishness. But then I saw the bit in the article about internet dating sites. Googled it for myself, there really has been coverage of that angle, reported coverage in places far from the murder scene [23], and close to home [24]. Plus extent and intensity of coverage really do make it more than a routine news story. passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Event" I see editors arguing for keeping the article are doing so by claiming it is a notable "event". Wikipedia guidelines on the notability of an event can be found here and are as follows:
- "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This murder is not such and cannot be predicted to become such per WP:CRYSTAL.
- "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections." This murder is not such in this case, either.
- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Does not qualify.
- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting." This murder does not qualify in this capacity, either. All reporting on this has been "in passing" and with the typical news-cycle, not in-depth.
- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This murder has not received significant coverage other than a few mirror mentions from Seattle-area reporting and none of it qualifies as ongoing.
- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted...where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability." No significant national or international news coverage beyond a typical news-cycle. This murder fails here, as well.
- "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines." The coverage does not meet the above guidelines, just as the murder does not meet the above guidelines for WP:EVENT and cannot be considered such to justify having and keeping the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This article actually meets two or three of your bullet points! Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but please elaborate how you think it meets those points. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage, more than a 24 hour news cycle but over a week and more, featured in Time (which is mentioned as a criteria). I realize that Wikipedia has articles like these so frustration should be directed at re-defining Wikipedia, not through an AFD of an article that meets the standards. I easily found more countries where there is coverage and the coverage is different. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing what you claim to be seeing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Whiskeymouth, BabbaQ and others. The online dating issue is a relevant angle and I think that it meets GNG based upon adequate news coverage from independent sources. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps this can be reassessed in six months to see if the "debate" over internet dating is still kicking along, but at the moment we have the usual flurry of routine coverage that most gruesome crimes get. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Look at the refs. On the other hand, I really regret getting involved in this page (with a casual renaming) at the beginning. It's worthy of a basic page, but it's not worthy enough for all this effort and dsicussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This certainly could still use better attention and thus I am relisting and commenting myself afterwards to help achieve consensus SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as the article certainly seems informative and sourced but I still question how solid and acceptable this is for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie McAleese[edit]

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

Nothing at all to suggest satisfying the applicable notability and my searches have found nothing better than expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam. Notifying tagger Toddst1. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no significant coverage, 6 years later. Amazed this article lasted this long. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local radio presenters need much better sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable radio personality....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:55, 29 April 2016 (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. No arguments for this article's retention have been made in over 1 week. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSwarm[edit]

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

No substantial Google books hits. A single Google scholar hit, which is a law journal article discussing the project's choice of free software license [25]. No hits on Google News. Not finding sufficient RS on this open source project to establish notability. SJK (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per SJK LavaBaron (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a recently released software, too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 29 April 2016 (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. Sufficient consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Guard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a collection of characters from a media franchise that shows no real world importance as a grouping. The references in the article only serve to reinforce fictional details without adding anything to establish notability. As an article, there seems to be no room for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 03:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now considering there's nothing confidently evident to actually suggest a solid independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per SwisterTwister and Joseph2302 LavaBaron (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the Transformers media franchise as a whole is notable, not every fictional element of it is sufficiently notable for its own article. I don't see any justification for why this character grouping is sufficiently notable for an article of its own. (I think the grouping may well be notable enough to mention in another article about Transformers, if it is not already, but the discussion of it there should be much more brief than this article.) SJK (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2016 (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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FUBAR Radio[edit]

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

Article about an Internet radio service, which makes no particular claim of notability per WP:NMEDIA. Internet radio stations do not get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, but must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG -- but with only one source here, that has not been demonstrated. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP with there being no convincing signs at all of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 03:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails NMEDIA & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:59, 23 April 2016 (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) 07:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PGC Studios[edit]

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

Article about a film studio which doubles as a WP:COATRACK for a WP:BLP of its producer. The referencing here is entirely to primary sources rather than independent reliable source coverage in media, the whole thing strikes a highly advertorial rather than encyclopedic tone, and there's no genuinely strong claim to notability per WP:CORP for anything more than the fact of its existence. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing confidently better for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per being failing WP:ORG and being (at kindest) TOO SOON. While nice that this young filmmaker created a production company, he and it have not yet gained the requisite coverage in reliable sources. And while conceivable that some of his/its short films might have notability, that has yet to be determined. Worse here is the COI of author ChloeHendrickson who is likely promoting the company because she has involvement in some of its films. She really needs to visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent evidence of notability. TheBlueCanoe 02:10, 24 April 2016 (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. Mike V • Talk 22:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Livingston[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source media coverage shown, of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. A writer is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but must be properly sourced as having notability for more than just existing -- but nothing written or sourced here demonstrates that at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The links establish that his columns have been carried in various publications. However that is not enough to make him notable. When articles use the subjects own columnes to establish facts in the article that tells us that either the article is poorly written or that those are the best sources, which do not lead to passing GNG. The later seems to be the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2016 (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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qwo-Li Driskill[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based almost entirely on primary sources with virtually no reliable source coverage in media shown, of a writer with no strong claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR. The strongest claim here, having been nominated for the Griffin Poetry Prize, is actually not supported by that award's article — possibly they were longlisted, but being longlisted for an award that doesn't release its preliminary longlists at all is an unverifiable claim that accordingly cannot confer notability. Which means that nothing here is substantive enough to make the subject notable for anything more than existing, and the sourcing is not strong or reliable enough to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driskill is a well-respected author with significant important major-press publications in poetry and Native American studies, both single-author poetry collections (2) and edited collections. Driskill's work has also been included in numerous anthologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profvalens (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of which grants a writer an exemption from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage which verifies those things to be as true as you claim they are. A person cannot get over WP:AUTHOR just because they're asserted as getting over WP:AUTHOR, if media coverage isn't present in the article for referencing to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The person does not meet ACADEMIC (assistant professor; not many cites on G-scholar). The person also does not meet AUTHOR - I was unable to find any reviews (which with poetry is always difficult), not even the standards (booklist, kirkus). The library holdings are not strong (~100). There are no major awards. This may be too soon, as this person is at the beginning of hir career. However, a career in queer Native American poetry is not going to get the attention of mainstream media, most likely, so I would advise editors to look to academic accomplishments for a future article. LaMona (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently still questionable for needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. This seems to be more of a hoax by way of a mistake than a deliberate one, so I'm not going to archive this to the hoax museum. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Rogers (western)[edit]

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

A supposed western version of Buck Rogers, I've searched everywhere for this-no luck as you might of guessed I get the actual Buck Rogers. I tried to look up with Tom Mix-again no luck. I believe this is a hoax! Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on what might have been an honest error as compared to a hoax. Buck Jones is a film cowboy from that era who had worked with Tom Mix. The Buck Rodgers article suggests that Jones was the source of the name for Rogers. In any format, this remains an unsourced Bio article which can be deleted.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is from before 2010 so it can't go under unsourced bios, also this mentions being a character not a real person. Wgolf (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that its obvious part of it is Roy Rogers-with the whole Trigger part! Surprise its been around so long! Wgolf (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was restored by Anthony Appleyard. I'm willing to delete it or move it to the hoax pages, but I'd like to hear Anthony's explanation as to why he restored it back in 2005 just in case there are sources out there. I searched and found nothing to suggest that there was ever a series of cowboy films or stories with a character with this specific name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that also-I was wondering why it was restored over 10 years ago. Well it looks like we will have the king of the longest running hoax page before long. But yeah when I was looking at really old articles tagged as unreferenced I had to see what this was when I saw it's title. Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf, Loriendrew, and Tokyogirl79: The edit history and logs of Buck Rogers (western) show that I edited or created it twice in December 2005 and never after that, and that I never undeleted it - that may have been before I became an admin. The edit history of page Buck Rogers (the spaceman) show that I edited it on and before 10 December 2005 and never after that. Way back before Wikipedia or even simple internet email groups started, I heard several times by various routes of a Western comic-book scenario with 2 cowboys called Buck Rogers and Tom Mix and a horse called Trigger, and that in the (original version of) the Buck Rogers spaceman scenario, "Buck" Rogers had another birth-forename (in one text fiction book, William) and that "Buck" was a nickname after the fictional cowboy. If this is not provable due to error, or due to loss of sources in the passage of years as people throw away or destroy old comic books, then you may as well delete page Buck Rogers (western). I am sorry if I caused trouble. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's cool. You don't normally do stuff without a reason, so I was hoping that you'd have sourcing or something like that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 23 April 2016 (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.