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 deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This did not have to be nominated at AFD. A ((db-band)) tag on the article would have sufficed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obliques (Band)[edit]

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

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a band with no credible claim to passing WP:NMUSIC; as written, this amounts to "Topic is a band that exists, the end", and doesn't even attempt to make any actual notability claim at all. In truth I'd ordinarily have speedied this, but there's already a declined speedy in the edit history. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by User:Obliquesmusic. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 11 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments[edit]

Coats of arms of U.S. Cavalry Regiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

As per Wikipedia:Galleries, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Field Army insignia of the United States Army, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations, insignia deletion discussion (and the second nom), this article is an image gallery that should actually reside on Commons. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:23, 11 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom: this would be a great page for Commons, but doesn't work here. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not an article that has encyclopedic content; fails fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY.

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Leigh Gordon[edit]

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a dancer, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been one member of a dance troupe that competed in, but failed to win, a reality show competition. This is not a claim of notability that entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and there's no strong reliable source coverage here to get her over WP:GNG -- with the exception of one piece of coverage on a local radio station in her own hometown, the sourcing here is entirely of the primary and YouTubey varieties. And even the radio piece is about the team, while entirely failing to contain even a glancing mention of Gordon as an individual. This is not the kind of sourcing, or the evidence of notability, that it takes to get a dancer into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect back to America's Got Talent (season 9) – but delete is the better course of action here...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; sources are limited and individual isn't notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:49, 18 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program[edit]

The Laurier English and Academic Foundation program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic program. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Essentially no coverage in reliable sources and page currently has no references. Meatsgains (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Every individual program at every individual university does not automatically get its own standalone article. Some such programs certainly can be sourced as independently notable topics in their own right — typically the professional programs like journalism, medicine, architecture, education, law or MBA schools, much more frequently than the "routine" programs like English literature, psychology or academic transition — but no evidence has been shown or reliably sourced here that this one would qualify as one of the special cases. Plus, I'm guessing direct conflict of interest editing by a student in the program. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no coverage and the article itself contains no indication that the program is especially notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:51, 18 August 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 Dwarf deities. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorm Gulthyn[edit]

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

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Dwarf deities. BOZ (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. As we have the article on Dwarf deities, there's no value in deleting outright. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above, but I'll note that it's premature, as the content has never been merged. While it's entirely possible that the IP address who turned the redirect into an article would contest this, all the editors in good standing who edit in this area are agreed that deities without non TSR/WotC refs should be appropriately merged, so I'm not sure why we even need an AfD here. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 15 August 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Mssiyah[edit]

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

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

Basketball player who has never played at a professional level, only in youth leagues. H-Hurry (talk) 20:36, 11 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could find no awards or special coverage, so delete per nom. Yvarta (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and NBASKETBALL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:38, 18 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sinning[edit]

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

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

Non-notable amateur basketball coach. H-Hurry (talk) 20:37, 11 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable basketball coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG and NBASKETBALL. Also, I think the person who created the article was closely associated with the topic, given the user's name (User:Dudepatrick12). Could be COI involved as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of being a notable coach. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:20, 18 August 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 The Webb Schools. I have redirected, text can be merged from the page history. Jujutacular (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webb Canyon Chronicle[edit]

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

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

Non-notable student newspaper; fails WP:GNG. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to The Webb Schools, which only has a 13-word passing mention. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Found no significant coverage. Clearly fails GNG. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a selective merge in the alternative that no consensus is found for deletion. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to The Webb Schools; student newspapers are real, and documenting theim is encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective Merge to The Webb Schools - Newspaper exists and it's better off merged into the school than deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 01:00, 19 August 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 article was deleted by Ymblanter. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Fire Academy[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable youth sports organization, fails WP:GNG and WP:BRANCH as youth leagues are generally non-notable. SanAnMan (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicago Fire Academy or delete – WP:BRANCH clearly states that "[a]s a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Based on this sentence alone, the article should be deleted as coverage does not significantly expand beyond the state of Indiana. However, it might fit well into an article about the Chicago Fire academy system, preferably to be created at Chicago Fire Academy (see also Category:American reserve soccer teams for similar articles). – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Chicago Fire Academy, which should be written to cover all teams in the MLS club's academy system. The league may be notable, but youth clubs, as a general rule, are not without meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC) In light of SanAnMan's comment below, I am changing my !vote to delete. Youth clubs must meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Chicago Fire Academy (not to be confused with Chicago Fire Soccer Club) is a non-existent article, and not even related to this article; this club is not the same club. The league this youth club belongs to is the U.S. Soccer Development Academy which has its own article as it should, although it is full of redlinks to its individual youth clubs and in need of major clean-up itself. Chicago Fire Academy is another youth club that is also a member of the same Development Academy, so merging this article to Chicago Fire Academy doesn't make sense. Also, a youth club is completely separate from and not even in the same level of play as a reserve soccer league, so that comparison doesn't stand up either. The fact that they are sponsored by notable professional clubs does not make the youth clubs notable, as notability is not inherited. Getting off the soapbox now, thanks. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable junior team. Were Chicago Fire Academy created, perhaps some content could be moved there, but that article does not exist. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:13, 12 August 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Lee Stansfield[edit]

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

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

No permanent collections and my searches are not finding better, the best claims of significance here is that he has published a few works, but there's still not the needed substance for an actually convincing article. I frankly would've frankly PRODed but that may simply be drive-by removed with no explanations. SwisterTwister talk 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:ARTIST with no prejudice of recreation in case more in-depth reliable sources are found. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on primary sources. I can't find any independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 19:39, 13 August 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 deleted as a blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M19 motorway[edit]

M19 motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was a planned route between the M1 and the A1 motorways that never got past the planning stage. A section of the M62 motorway was upgraded to establish the link Fudpukker (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 12 August 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 List of professional Magic: The Gathering players. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cuneo[edit]

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

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

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:58, 3 August 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 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG and BLP. Nothing notable about this individual. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets the subject-specific criteria here. (200+ pro points) Tazerdadog (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable gamesman.John Pack Lambert (talk)

• Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for independent notability substance. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP Not notable. Cbs527 (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be ideal to have a merge target (List of Magic players?) or something. Hobit (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article mentioned above is List of professional Magic: The Gathering players. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of professional Magic: The Gathering players, where he is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:24, 20 August 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 is clear, based on arguments and lack of reliable sourcing; statements that sources are available and reliable lack evidence. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Atencio[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

No evidence of notability - lots of external links which all seem to be about the "hittingpaydirt" service, the only one to mention the name seems to be unreliable source Reddit. PamD 07:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with the nominator no indication of notability, seems like just a way for person to get his name out. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google search turns up very little, if anything, in the way of reliable, independent sources. The soruces that are provided in the article are either only passing mentions (if that), statistics, or are just plainly unreliable. I should also mention that the article creator has been blocked for disruptive editing. JudgeRM (talk to me) 14:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment added sources include LA Times, Las Vegas Review Journal, SmartVoter, among others. Over 12 reputable sources now listed with more to follow. (Avento55 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
• DO NOT DELETE Disagree with nominator. Sources are verifiable. As far as media print, doesn't get much more reputable than the Times and Review Journal.(Paininthegain (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to exist any secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject that cover the article subject in-depth nor establish notability for this person. My search came back with nothing, and none of the sources listed in the article can be considered reliable either. Therefore, I believe that WP:GNG is definitely not established or met, and this article should be deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ""DISAGREE"" Over a dozen sources verify notability. Agree with "Paininthegain", if your debate is the Times and Review Journal are not reputable, you need to do you research. They are two of USA's largest prints. (Avento55 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  Avento55 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. PamD 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DISAGREE DO NOT DELETE I took the time to review each link and found several to be reliable sources. I'm from the west coast (CA, USA) and AJ is a big name in the sports gambling industry. I know sports gambling isn't the biggest genre out there right now but I believe the article serves a purpose. (JamesSPR (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  JamesSPR (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. PamD 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) To be precise, the comment above is his/her first edit. PamD 16:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking out vote by possible sock/meat puppet account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Pam, I am newer here. Are you saying my opinion is less valued because of that? Looks like we have an ego problem going around Wiki. (JamesSPR (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a minor personality in the sports betting space. I cannot find RS on this subject, and the article appears to be promotional in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note -- the objecting editor has attempted to strike out the "delete" votes: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• These painfully-obvious socks are, as they say, painfully obvious. There's no need to strike their comments, nor to quadruple their height by saying why you struck them. That's just antagonizing, and the closing admin, whoever it turns out to be, is not a dolt.
  New guy: The way to save this article kept is by presenting nontrivial, reliable sources (nothing in the article is both), not by creating new accounts and making the same baseless assertions over and over. You're not fooling anybody and are only hurting your own case. —Cryptic 04:06, 14 August 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 Indo-Aryan migration theory. Although there's no numerical consensus, the argument that this is a POV fork - an article covering the same topic from a particular point of view - of Indo-Aryan migration theory is a strong one, and has not been addressed by the "keep" side. Our policy is to have one article per topic, and to use consensus to determine what is in it. There is therefore policy-based consensus not to have a separate article, but it's not clear that this requires outright deletion. Editors must discuss whether and to which extent to reintegrate this content into the one article we are going to have about this topic.  Sandstein  05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan migration debate[edit]

Indo-Aryan migration debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was created as a POV-fork when fringe material was removed from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It currently is not in compliance with NPOV and WP:FRINGE as it presents fringe viewpoints as equally valid to mainstream ones - this problem is inherent in the articles entire structure. If we ever need a separate article on the "debate" separate from the article on the theory, then it would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to our content policies. Meanwhile, I suggest we delete this POV-fork, since it makes little sense to merge it back into the article from which the material was originally cut. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's clear from your nomination statement that deleting this material would be fundamentally incompatible with maintaining a neutral point of view. There's a basic difference between a neutral point of view and a majority point of view, and you're obviously trying to present one point of view as invalid. Go discover what "neutral" means, and don't impose the majority point of view on an encyclopedia that from its beginning has valued presenting both sides of a story. Perhaps the content isn't neutral (I've never even heard of this theory before, so I can't know if it's ignoring some viewpoints), but that's a matter for subject-matter experts to decide, and it can be resolved through editing, not deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense, keeping a POVfork is fundamentally at odds with maintaining a neutral point of view and deletion is specifically given as a solution to pov forks in policy. That you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to know whether the material is indeed a fringe pov is not a valid reason to vote keep. Also NPOV specifically mentions that neutrality is not giving equal weight to "both sides" - neutrality is giving weight according to prominence within the relevant field of knowledge. This material was removed form the main article because it gives undue weight to non-notable minority and fringe viewpoints. The viewpoint currently has the appropriate amount of coverage in the main article from which it was split - keeping it in a segregated article like this is NOT in any ways compatible with wikipedia policy. One of these viewpoints ARE invalid according to scientific consensus- and hence it does not deserve or warrant the same degree of coverage that the mainstream viewpoint does. What abou you go and read what neutral actually means before lecturing people about topics about which you havent a clue. The neutrality policy is basic stuff that an administrator is expected to actually understand - advocating for retaining pov forks (the articles creator has stated the fact that it is a pov fork quite sqaurely and has also stated that he would not vote keep) is quite odd for someone who is supposed to enforce our basic policies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only keep vote that's been elaborated on so far, but the argument isn't valid. We're not silencing one side of a debate here. Mainstream scholars unambiguously consider the "Indigenous Aryans" theory to be fringe, nationalistic pseudoscience which @Nyttend: ought to have been able to learn by just briefly perusing the relevant articles. It is notable enough for us to cover it as a fringe theory, and that coverage exists at Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration theory. This article appears to have begun as an attempt to reduce the size of its parent but unfortunately it has ended up repeating the arguments of fringe theorists without balancing them with the mainstream consensus, as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would require (apart from an inadequately short "criticism" section). And I agree that it's vaguely worrying to see an admin wade into an AfD in defence of fringe science on a subject they, by their own admission, don't know anything about. Joe Roe (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It was split-off from Indigenous Aryans, to reduce the size of that article, not from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It's a hopeless article indeed, but that's inherent in it's topic: an overview of fringe-arguments for a fringe-theory. As such, it serves a purpose: mainstream ideas, fringe ideas, rejection of these fringe ideas. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article into "Indigenous Aryans arguments." I hope this helps to make clearer what the article is about. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Redirect to Indigenous Aryans. Many editors edited this article and has lots of content. But it is very same to Indigenous Aryans. There are arguments against Indo-Aryan Migration by few other theories, but this article has included arguments only from Indigenous Aryans, that's why it should be redirected to it. If anyone sees any new content on this article, it can be merged to Indigenous Aryans. Lorstaking (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting to delete the contents of "Indigenous Aryans arguments", or to merge it to "Indigenous Aryans" (after being pruned for primary sources etc., as Maunus suggests)? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd like to see some of the Keep voters describe what this article adds to WP and justify why this article should exist. This whole set of articles is a mess and deleting this one will help. There's too much content reptition across Indo-European migrations, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Proto-Indo-European religion, Indigenous Aryans arguments, and Proto-Indo-European society. (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pure POV-fork, and the content isn't worth salvaging for a merge. Joe Roe (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- as a POV fork arguing about a FRINGE theory. The whole issue seems to depend on Hindutva-promoted theories that are highly subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Nyttend.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adiagr (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect like Lorstaking said. Good amount of content which can be merged but not enough need of article. Capitals00 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ay Caramba, this set of pages is such a mess. In addition to the page under discussion, there is Indigenous Aryans which as I see it is even more problematic than this page. And then there was Out of India Theory, which was merged into Indigenous Aryans. They are all clearly derivatives of the same fringe theory. What we need is a single page about this theory, treating it as a fringe theory (analogous to Climate change denial). Indigenous Aryan arguments does not fulfill this function. What it is doing is creating false equivalence between the accepted view and the fringe view, partly by using extensive quotations from both sides. I wouldn't even know how to go about salvaging a useful page from this. Delete it, and start over using the small set of sources that are describing the debate as the basis. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see credible references used and the topic passes WP:GNG. It would be a loss to purge the article. Please persuade if it fails notability guidelines. --Ekvastra (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekvastra: Have you read the nomination? The argument is not that this should be deleted because it isn't notable, it's because it's a POV fork of a notable topic. Joe Roe (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Have you read policies? First, from the edit history of the article I do not find who edit-warred to create a split, could you get me proof for this assertion, burden to give evidence for your assertion is on you. Second POV Split page does not tell it is a deletion policy. --Ekvastra (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Nyttend. HemaChandra88 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hema would you care to elaborate? Not sure what the rules of play are here, but whether HemaChandra88 [dis]agrees with [whatever] isn't part of the debate. We're not counting a tally we're trying to discuss the merit of the proposal. --Cornellier (talk) 02:47, 16 August 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infopark[edit]

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

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

Not notable. I went ahead and left in the rather large list of customers, although that is generally not something we allow. Mentioning in prose, sure, but not lists. This seems to be trying to inherit notability, or dropping names. That isn't how WP:CORP works. I did some basic searching, and I don't find anything that satisfies the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Farmer Brown (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet NORG. The article on the company product has been recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrivito. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 16 August 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. A rationale for deletion was not provided in the proposed deletion (diff, notice how the "concern =" parameter is empty) prior to this nomination (link). As such, a valid rationale for deletion was never presented in either of these processes. WP:NPASR that provides a valid rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Keino[edit]

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

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

PROD and other templates removed with absolutely no explanations at all and I still confirm my removed PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article should not be deleted. Phyllis Keino meets Wikipedia's standards for notoriety and the majority of the citations have been replaced with outside sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.202.211.195 (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep WP:NPASR  WP:SK#1 No argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 12 August 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  18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Norsworthy[edit]

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

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

PROD removed with absolutely no explanations despite my saying there's no inherited notability for CFO and there's essentially nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete / Speedy Delete This reads like something that we'd expect to find on her company's website. As mentioned, nothing notable about being a CFO in and of itself if it were re-written, and right now the WP:PROMO language is 100% of this article. Personally I feel G11 & A7 CSD covers it. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 20:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I have moved the following text below (within the box) here from the talk page for this discussion, because it's unlikely to be seen there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – JL789: Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people are located at WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. What is needed is proof of notability per Wikipedia's standards. Has the subject received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete she is a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am of the opinion that Wikipedia has an overabundance of articles on unnotable businesspeople, and they basically all need to be deleted. However the process of sorting them out is difficult, and time consuming, so we delete the ones that get nominated, and encourage those who feel other articles are also on unnotable people to nominate them for deletion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She's mentioned in the news if you look on HighBeam, but there aren't any articles with independent RS covering her non-trivially that I've found on the web or databases. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:37, 15 August 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) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season[edit]

2016-2017 Indiana Fire Academy season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The underlying team for this season article is neither professional nor playing on the top college level. Therefore, its seasons are not meeting the notability criteria for season articles. The article also fails to demonstrate the applicability of the broader general notability criteria. WP:PROD was contested with the following rationale. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails NSEASONS. May pass GNG later but given the season hasn't started it essentially can't by definition now. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Nothing to suggest anything more than an average youth league, which doesn't meet standards. I would even go so far as to question the notability of the parent article, Indiana Fire Academy. In addition, the author who created the article and challenged the PROD appears to be a WP:SPA writer solely interested in this organization. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I have gone ahead and added the parent article to AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Indiana Fire Academy - SanAnMan (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable youth league participation only, fails WP:NSEASONS Seasider91 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 17:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if the season were complete, this would fail WP:GNG and WP:SEASONS. Youth leagues do not qualify for season articles. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:12, 12 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fighter Rankings[edit]

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

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

Article consists of current UFC rankings and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Article needs constant updating and fails to show significant independent coverage. This would be the same as having an article on the current college football rankings--it needs constant updating and doesn't show why that ranking is notable. I'm sure there are plenty of passing mentions of these rankings, such as "he's currently ranked ninth in the UFC lightweight division" but that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. These aren't even world rankings, just rankings of a particular promotion.Mdtemp (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SAL, doesn't meet any qualifications for existing lists. This is basically a carbon-copy of information found on this promotion's website, so possibly even a borderline-WP:COPYVIO. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the above two reasons. Wikipedia does not exist to be a site mirror.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I never would have thought of this as a copyright violation. I don't see how an organization's frequently changing rankings confer notability on themselves. As nom pointed out, there will be plenty of passing mentions of where fighters are ranked, but not necessarily significant and independent coverage of the entire list. Papaursa (talk) 02:04, 13 August 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 already deleted and salted. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Ofoegbu[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable person. Fails WP:BASIC, no sources. Specto73 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note here that this article has been placed (repeatedly) by a paid editor. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: There have been repeated deletions of versions of this article ([1], [2]) and also a rejected AfC ([3]). While some of the hyperbole of the first versions has been pruned, at no point has there been evidence presented or found to indicate that the subject (a project manager) is anything more than a person with a job, going about his business. Membership of professional associations and golf clubs, holes in one: while all of these may be gratifying to the subject, the point that these are not evidence of encyclopaedic notability does not seem to be understood: [4]. AllyD (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: promotional, no actual notability. ubiquity (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - blatant promotional article for an unremarkable person. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:38, 11 August 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kbach Yuthakun Tvear Prambey Bôran Khmer[edit]

Kbach Yuthakun Tvear Prambey Bôran Khmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written and confusing article about a non-notable martial art. Article starts out talking about a historical martial art and then switches to the discussing the modern form of this art, which apparently is a family style. Either way there's not enough significant independent coverage to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. There's also no evidence the modern version has anything to do with the historical one.Mdtemp (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is very confusing and there is no indication what the connection is with the convoluted history section with the titled modern art discussed latter on. The history section is already covered in Bokator where it belongs and there also seems to be some duplication with Kbach kun boran. The unique portion does not demonstrate notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I showered improvement tags on this early in its life hoping against hope that there was something notable or at least noteworthy there. A month has passed and nothing of any substance has been added. I agree with the nominator - this fails WP:GNG and it seems most unlikely that better sources will appear. I couldn't find any.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. To see if the modern version is notable, I also checked for coverage of the current master of the art. I found no significant independent coverage of him, either--just things like Facebook and youtube. The modern version may exist, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:25, 15 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCG Maptaphut Stadium[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable building. Fails WP:GNG. Specto73 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following duplicate article has been added to this AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maptaphut municipality Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searching for the Thai name, then using Google Translate, I still don't see anything of note. This would appear to be a rather minor playing field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found two rather brief news articles on smmsport.com, reporting on construction work in 2012 due to the stadium not passing standards,[5] and in 2014 to expand the stands.[6] SMM Sport appears to be an online-only publication, though its owner, Siam Inter Multimedia, is a well-known media company. Someone with the time might also want to check the other articles in Category:Football venues in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: There's a duplicate article at Maptaphut municipality Stadium, which I've added to this AfD. Pinging Specto73 and Shawn in Montreal FYI. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both appears to be a non-notable playing field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marines Maptaphut F.C. since it's a plausible search term for the team that plays there. Smartyllama (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both titles. I would normally recommend a redirect, but the team's article names a different playing field. Neither article has any sources so it is impossible to tell what the true situation is. --MelanieN (talk) 21:26, 19 August 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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Gatarić[edit]

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

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

Completely non-notable artist. Only reliable link is to hr.wikipedia, wikidata, wikimedia commons. No news result. And simple search is only about facebook links. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks any kind of notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnotable – not a single reference provided and I cannot find any reliable source. It has several interwiki links, all created by Milostomic90 in a single swath in mid-July, see https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user=Milostomic90 . No such user (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing all criteria of WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of sources. I have not been able to find any independent, reliable sources that could be used to support notability as an artist. Mduvekot (talk) 01:03, 14 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mouhamed Abdulla[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ACADEMICS, no WP:RS. WP:NOTRESUME. Judging by the numerous unsourced personal details, this is likely written by the subject himself as a promotional or vanity article. P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This looks like an early-career researcher who doesn't yet meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Member but not a fellow of the IEEE and ACM. Hasn't held a named chair or been an editor-in-chief for a major journal. Hasn't led a notable organization. A GS search turns up lots of articles for similar names, but I don't see any that look like they came from his field. There is one photo caption in the entry that suggests he won a notable IEEE award, but it's actually the other person in the photo who won the award. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this inflated article. Neither WP:Prof or WP:GNG passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable academic.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citation record far too low for WP:PROF#C1 and none of the Wikipedia:Wikipuffery in the article (minor awards, hobnobbing with more famous people, etc) adds up to any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 18 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park Jae-hyun (model)[edit]

Park Jae-hyun (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article may not meet strict WP:A7, but does not qualify on notability as a Model. This user created similar articles. Phyo WP (message) 13:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Tried to search through Korean search engines using hangul alphabets, but didn't find anything considerable. Fails at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Almost nothing to be found. I did find many other Park Jae-Hyuns however. Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:12, 18 August 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 as WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Privileges of War (Book)[edit]

Privileges of War (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-fiction book with no claim to notability, should be deleted as not meeting any of the notability criteria for books nor the general notability criteria. None of the references mentions the book at all, and I fail to find any reliable secondary sources. That episodes described in the book were the subject of news reports does not make the book itself notable. A small independent film company has apparently picked up an option on the book (but again, this is not actually referenced anywhere) - if a notable film comes out of it, that will be a different matter, but at that point, somebody who is not affiliated with the author of the book will probably create an article about it. The author of the current article appears to have a strong conflict of interest; they are obviously editing in good faith but may not have fully understood Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with everything Bonadea wrote. I ran a Google search on "privileges of war". There were 62 hits, a fair number of them not using the phrase in reference to the book. Of the ones that did, I found one, this, that wasn't involved in sales or promotion of the book, and that had as many as three sentences about it, and even those were in passing. Largoplazo (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I disagree completely with Bonadea and Largoplaza and am utterly amazed that deletion would even be suggested. I am sickened that a book which discusses the true and well documented selfless actions of a small team of American soldiers who risked their lives for the freedom of 165 primitive mountain villagers is not . . . "notable" in itself. Yet, a fictional account of made-up accounts of heroism, as described in the book The Green Berets, makes its way to the pages of Wikipedia. The only things that made that book "notable" was how inaccurate it was and how poorly it was received by critics, the public and . . . real soldiers. So, if Wikipedia were to drop Privileges of War and keep The Green Berets . . . what statement does that make about the Wikipedia platform?ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which exists to document that which is notable, per Wikipedia's definition of notability. This is not the place to discuss the notability of any other articles - each article stands and falls on its own merits. The article The Green Berets (book) may not have a particularly strong claim to notability either, but again, that's irrelevant here. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if, and only if, after looking at this and this, and making a good-faith attempt to prove that the book is notable, you find that it isn't. (That's what I did before nominating this article.) As stated above, that a book deals with notable events or concepts does not make the book itself notable. In addition, notability has nothing to do with whether something is worthy or interesting; I have no opinion about that, one way or another, and it wouldn't matter if I did. The fact remains that the article doesn't include a single reference to a source that mentions the book, and that very strongly suggests that the book is not notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. It fails WP:BKCRIT as well since none of the other criteria are met. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched, but the only thing I could find was this local source about the book, so the book looks to fail WP:NBOOK. Now the book's accuracy or the lack of accuracy of other works are not considered arguments that would give or take away notability as far as WP:NBOOK is considered, as notability is decided by the work's coverage in reliable sources or the coverage for any adaptations in RS. Green Berets would pass NBOOK because of the notable film adaptation starring John Wayne. In any case, Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and if Moore's book is very inaccurate then the way to go about correcting that is to find sourcing that backs this claim up and add it to the article. (Offhand it looks like this might be doable.) It's a shame that we can't have an article on every book that was published through a reputable publisher, but the guidelines on Wikipedia are too strict for this and they're unlikely to ever become more loose. If the film adaptation occurs and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated, but not before that point or before the book gains coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Nauseating commentary . . . no wonder this world is in the state it is. Where is inspiration? What do you people do in real life when you aren't hiding behind screen names amd numbers? Please delete the page . . . it would be an honor not to be a part of Wikipedia. If I could delete it myself . . . I would. You should be ashamed of yourselves.ThomasARoss —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The author has blanked the article and expressed a wish to delete it, and since the discussion has unanimously pointed towards a delete anyway I went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion per author request. @ThomasARoss: I'm sorry your experience of Wikipedia was unpleasant. It is not unusual that people's expectations of what belongs in Wikipedia are different from what the guidelines say, but please note that civility towards your fellow editors is required. --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 14 August 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  18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drowtales[edit]

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

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Three hits on google news- one, an article from 2015 where it's mentioned in the comments. One, a completely routine listing of comic books for sale from 2012. The biggest mention is a paragraph long description in Comics Alliance from 2012, alongside many other comics. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing but a WP:plot dump. Every source is from the Drowtales website and useless for establishing notability. Previous discussions centered on WP:other stuff and Wikipedia:ILIKEIT arguments. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, for the same reasons I listed last month(?). I personally believe that the no-consensus of the last AfD was improper, as I've yet to see enough sources to be able to write an article with. ~Mable (chat) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and administratively close as too soon following previous discussion. The proper venue for contesting a recent AfD outcome with which one disagrees is WP:DRV. All the arguments from the previous AfD still apply, do they not? Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion does not specify a time period outside of "to give editors the time to improve the page." In the 42 days since the previous nomination, there have been exactly 2 edits. One was a bot, the other changed 1 character in a reference name. This hardly seems "too soon" to me. As for the previous arguments, they still amount to nothing but WP:other stuff and Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not a good encyclopedic article I'll agree, I'm somewhat biased as I contributed some to it in early days as a fan. I tend to believe the web-comic is notable, though the article does completely fail to establish this. Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics, though it certainly doesn't have the same level as cultural impact as for example XKCD, so yeah not a lot of 3. party sources. Ultimately I would not be hugely bothered if it was deleted, but maybe just re-writing the first section a bit and deleting everything below that would do the job? Certainly excessive amounts of fancruft in the current form. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There don't seem to be any proper sources providing critical reviews or commenting on the cultural impact of the topic, so it currently has no need to exist. Examples provided in the previous AfD do not at all appear to be reliable or relevant. TTN (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly referenced. I can't find any reliable sources that help prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, re "Just the fact that it has stayed alive as a purely commercial venture for 15 years set it apart from most webcomics", please see WP:OLDSUBJECT. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:13, 15 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate reality[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy (reactions) 12:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just an advertisement for a non-notable book, written in a POV style. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything to show that this press book is ultimately notable. Leadstart also looks to be a vanity press per things like this and this. I'm going to try my hand at drafting a speedy deletion criteria for books again. I think that we might be able to get one if we just limited it to self-published work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Article does not assert notability, and I could not find any reliable sources. The article itself reads like an advertisement, or something I'd find on the back cover. Sunmist3 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing but promotion. Fails WP:NBOOK Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTPROMOTION, sources cited are not reliable, a gsearch brings up the same. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete honestly, by far not at all convincing, author's article is being deleted now also. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 13 August 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  18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Kumar[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. This article is part of a COI effort to promote Kumar and his books. I have not been able to find any additional WP:RS to establish notability. shoy (reactions) 12:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep the references in the article enable a borderline pass of WP:BASIC, the author of the article has only created this page not any book articles. If you can explain the coi issue may change vote. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jagadeshanh created the original version of the article which was speedy deleted, and has since been the almost exclusive editor. shoy (reactions) 17:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as by SPA am changing to weak keep, if he was paid editor would vote delete Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this does not meet WP:NAUTHOR by anty stretch of the imagination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, article creator was asked to by the subject, see here - User talk:Shoy.

Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons it's here, plus the promo for the book. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable, just blogs, facebook etc., did find a review of Know Thyself here[7] by the Zordor Times but "Created By Sora Templates and My Blogger Themes" at the bottom of the page and "We are Zordar! Details coming soon" on the About page[8] does not engender confidence. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment notwithstanding the subjects doubtful notability, the style of writing doesn't follow encyclopaedic styleWP:MOS, e.g. at length it reflects on the subjects state of mind (He rebelled against every religious idea. Moreover, during his childhood and early years, Gian Kumar struggled with a lack of financial comforts. Being a scientifically inclined person, he questioned every experience happening during his life, more so his struggles.) while providing little noteworthy, verifiable information. This needs to be rewritten accordingly, by someone who is familiar with the subject, or lack thereof, deleted. --Jôanes (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I trimmed out much of the promotional content and editorializing nonetheless, the author lacks significant notability and the page was written as a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 19 August 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 deleted G7. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 13:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni boscariol[edit]

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

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

Giobosca (talk) 11:56, 11 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 11 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waraich clan[edit]

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

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

Lacks notability. All the clan articles in the category of 'Jat Clans of Punjab' face the same issue. Most of them are as if there are listed in a clans directory, WP:NOT. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 12:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Pinging @Sitush: as the original nominator and sole participant of the first AfD for their consideration and input. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete my opinion remains as it was at the first AfD in Jan/Feb this year, and for the reasons stated therein. - Sitush (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 15 August 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. There's was a suggestion to redirect to Siege of San Sebastián, which I would normally do, consensus or not, per WP:ATD. But, The siege of San Sebastian (1813) seems like such an unlikely search term, I'm going to pass on that. If somebody else wants to be WP:BOLD and create the redirect, who am I to stand in their way? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The siege of San Sebastian (1813)[edit]

The siege of San Sebastian (1813) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Proposed deletion, contested by DGG on the spurious grounds of "addition material in Basque WP" (this is in fact a word-for-word translation of the entire Basque article, which as with this translation devotes only two short sentences to the actual topic, the rest being historical background), so bringing this over to AFD to do it the long way. Per the discussion on the talk page, this is not "a painting by an unknown artist", this is a poor-quality English souvenir etching by Thomas Batchelor of the type that were—literally—two a penny before the first illustrated news magazines were introduced in 1842, when newspaper printing presses couldn't handle illustrations so the printed plates were sold separately. I can find absolutely nothing to suggest that this has ever been the topic of any coverage in any source whatsoever (its entry on the museum's website reads in full Anónimo, The Siege of San Sebastian, siglo XIX, grabado coloreado, 51 x 60,8 cm, and Batchelor wasn't an engraver of any note and only appears as an entry in directories of publishers, not as the subject of any discussion in his own right).  ‑ Iridescent 11:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that we need to establish some sort of significance for this image as we cannot just have an article about some random etching without any kind of sources. I did a google image search to find something better and found this image which is bigger and allows for a reading of the text. It's from this website which does credit Batchelor (as Batchelar). However, a search of Thomas Batchelor of Moorfields tells us that he was known as a printer and publisher, not specifically an engraver himself (one directory tells us "Batchelor, Thomas, printer & publisher, 115, Long Alley, Moorfields, 1817U"). So it's entirely possible that the artist is unknown. A google translation of the Spanish website indicates that the image is being used in the Zumalakarregi Museum (or its website) as an artifact and/or illustration of the battle itself. The engraving itself spells the name Batchelar, not Batchelor, and credits the publication of the image to one T. Batchelar. Searching for Thomas Batchelar gives us nothing -- it appears to be common then and now. Adding "publisher" gives us a book, Napoleon and British Song, 1797-1822 (Oskar Cox Jensen) which mentions Batchelar as a "loyalist printer" and central to "loyalist song culture". According to the Pickering & Chatto Antiquarian Booksellers Bulletin, (I can't link the PDF because of the spam filter), Batchelar was a London "ballad printer". Other than that, his name appears in some directories. In the end, we don't appear to have much. The engraving, probably artist unknown, is most likely not significant other than as an illustration. Batchelar appears to be non-notable himself. The image could be used in the article on the seige, with a redirect for anybody who may be searching for the image and has not tried out google yet. Someone with time on their hands could possibly write a sentence about the image for Siege of San Sebastián, as an indication of contemporary interest in the battle itself, although sources appear to be lacking. This was fun, though. freshacconci talk to me 14:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. the additional material was an additional reference at least; I can't read Basque to see if there was further content. If a major museum consider a picture significant enough to put on its own website in a prominent position it's notable (as an analog of the accepting criterion fcr WP:CREATIVE.) DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "major museum" would that be? San Telmo Museum is a small local history museum so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and they don't have this "on their website in a prominent position" (here's the website in question should you want to check); this link, which I suspect is what you're referring to, is the subpage for a temporary exhibition in 2013 in which this print was included (and if you scroll down to the photos of the rest of the exhibits you'll see why this one was chosen). I challenge you to find even one single source other than the one-line entry in the museum's catalog—in any language—which even mentions this print, let alone qualifies as "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources". As I've already pointed out, and you're studiously ignoring, the Basque article (complete with the "additional reference") is not about this print; other than the single sentence 1813ko Donostiako setioa margolana Donostiako San Telmo museoan dago. XIX. mendeko egile ezezagun batena da eta 1813an gertatu zen Donostiako setioa deskribatzen du. ("The Siege of San Sebastian is a 19th-century painting by an unknown artist in the San Telmo Museum, San Sebastian, depicting the 1813 siege of San Sebastian"), it's just a description of the aftermath of the siege; the additional reference is for the statement that "over 1000 were killed and women and children were systematically raped", not to anything relating to this print. As Freshacconci correctly says above, a case can be made for including this in Siege of San Sebastian to illustrate that the battle generated interest in Britain (although there are much better quality British depictions of the event which would likely do the job better), but it serves no useful function for Wikipedia to host an article which it's literally impossible to expand beyond two sentences. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship [eu] merits its own article in English, but a major museum, sorry, that it is not. The idea that a picture should become notable in Wikipedia terms because it is displayed on a museum website is fanciful and a disregard for WP:GNG, and the analogue with WP:CREATIVE is obscure. If any analogue applies here it is rather "artistic work where the artist has no article and that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" (WP:A9). — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes, a local museum whose website states that it's a "Reference center for knowledge and enjoyment of the nineteenth century in the Basque Country" used the illustration on its website for a historical exhibition. This is not the same as being part of a significant exhibition, as is suggested by the biographical guideline for WP:CREATIVE, nor does it confer any notability on this obscure illustration. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Illustrations have never been held in a esteem at a par with formal paintings (compare with comics nowadays and before). However, that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references that elaborate on technique or form or school, but it gathers an attention, and the fact of being anonymous does not detract from both formal and historical context aspects, where the publisher (or printer, above) can be cited. "Local museum", "so obscure"..., yes, runner-up to Best Museum of Europe 2013, no less. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what your source is for this museum being runner up or in what category... but I cannot except that any illustration that happens to be featured in a local exhibit on area history therefore automatically becomes notable -- nor do our guidelines allow for this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A local exhibit": Yes, local, any museum is located somewhere, even Tate Modern. San Telmo lies in Donostia. I agree though that when it comes to individual references to the illustration, sources are scarce. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right and the museum, now apparently repurposed according to its website as the Museum of Basque Society and Citizenship, does look stunning, esp. with its redesign. It's unfortunate we don't have an article on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was the Commons file for the image properly categorized. I've done so. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we also see that the article creator has been prolific in creating this stub across a variety of wikipedia language editions, using different but related usernames. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Wikidata links listed at fr:Musée San Telmo suggest that there was formerly an English article on the museum. Can't find a redlinked deleted file, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a deleted article at any permutation of the name, and San Telmo (disambiguation) doesn't include it in any version. Are you sure you're not actually seeing the link to eu-wikipedia (Basque)? ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the multiple language versions, see the links on the talkpage; it was created as some kind of mass-stub-creation contest. ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

right and for that "deleted file" thing, when I hover over the grey "English" I now see that it's for a pop-up for "traduit cette page en anglais" so it was just some sort weird setting issue... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in re "that does not make it less interesting. Admittedly, it has no references ...", please see WP:INTERESTING. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think prints can be notable, but this one is not. I can't see that there is anything we could say about the print beyond the bare facts that are already in the article. We don't know who the artist is, the publisher isn't notable, the print itself is not unusual in any way, and there doesn't appear to be any more information about it, not even in Basque or Spanish. It's a pity we don't have anything about the museum though; that may very well be notable. Mduvekot (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Arguments for deletion have been convincing.Redirect to Siege of San Sebastián and use it there. Otherwise, it's a micro-stub of an article on an otherwise non remarkable art piece. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:USEFUL. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets the standard of being on permanent display in a major museum, and nothing more is needed. Some articles will always be stubs, and there's nthing wrong with that either. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a source for "on permanent display in a major museum"? Even if you accept the San Telmo as a major museum (which is itself dubious), nobody is claiming that this is part of the permanent collection let alone on permanent display. The link is to a long-gone temporary exhibition in which this was included, not to the permanent collection. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck through your second vote; just because you really don't want something deleted doesn't mean you get to be double-counted. ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- While the article is primarily about a painting in a gallery, the siege was a notable engagement of the Peninsula War and might conveniently be expanded to encompass the history of the siege. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, could you clarify the above? You appear to be advocating deleting the existing Siege of San Sebastián article, overwriting it with this, and then re-expanding this to cover the battle, which makes no sense at all. (Incidentally, I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated but this is not an article on a painting, but on a penny-etching; the present-day equivalent would be having a Wikipedia page on an individual issue of a newspaper or magazine.) ‑ Iridescent 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the engraving (not painting), and the notability of the siege has nothing to do with the notability of the subject at hand. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had failed to appreciate that we has an article on the siege. Changed vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not find anything to support notability. I don't even understand the title: is "1813" supposed to be the date the work was created, as one would normally expect, or does it refer to the date of the actual siege, in which case we don't know when OR by whom this was done? In fact we know almost nothing about this piece. The battle itself was notable, but not every illustration of it is therefore notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pure prod material, had this been a musical recording, A9 would have applied. Here, in lack of a specific WP:SNG, it is WP:GNG that applies. The best "source" I could find is this .pdf from the museum. And that's just not enough. — Sam Sailor 03:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (possibly merge) to Siege of San Sebastián, which uses the picture as an illustration. I doubt that the picture is independently notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Peninsula Campaign was fought and won by a great many British gentlemen, Britain was the world's wealthiest country, the market for prints of that campaign was enormous because Wellington's army was enormous. Even the families of the foot soldiers could afford a print of the battle where a beloved son fought - or fell. So many of these engravings survive that they decorate the hallways of small hotels, and print shops today have huge stocks of them to choose from. They sell them as upscale tourist souvenirs. Some engravings of this war are notable: The Disasters of War. But I see no evidence that this one is. While there is no reason to redirect this, the image itself would make a nice addition to our article Siege of San Sebastián.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I added this image to the page on the siege. I think we can W:SNOW close this now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 25 August 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  18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaunty spillane[edit]

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

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

I came across this as an A7 candidate and while the assertion of notability is wafer thin, it's still there via her having acted in notable films. However that said, these roles are all non-named extra roles, many of which are uncredited. (IE, none of the roles are major, which is required per WP:NACTOR.) For example, it's hard to say that Ghostbusters was her break through role when she was playing "Show Girl Ghost" in an uncredited role. None of the things in the article give notability, as a search brought up nothing to establish how any of it is notable - actors are not automatically notable for existing (WP:ITEXISTS) nor do they automatically inherit notability from an association with notable persons, films, or organizations - we need sourcing to establish how these roles were major. (WP:NOTINHERITED) If not for the local coverage for her, I'd have speedied this but I figure that this is just enough to where it'd be safer to send it to AfD and have it as a more firm delete, given that there have been various attempts to create this article in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR, other activities are around non-notable entities. Article has more of a promotional tone than encyclopedic.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

–––––

The article is of notability and per guidelines of notability requirements only requires three reliable resources that are in depth about the person of notability. The following are three reliable sources directly from the page article proposed for possible deletion: Spillane, Chaunty. "Chaunty FollowingTheNerd Article". FollowingTheNerd. Spillane, Chaunty. "Local Actress Appears in Ghostbusters". The Westfield News. The Westfield Newspaper. The Westfield Newspaper. Retrieved 8 August 2016. Markham, Brett. Modern Caveman- The Complete Paleo Lifestyle Handbook. Retrieved 8 August 2016. (WP:ITEXISTS)

If I may so gently correct a statement above regarding Chaunty Spillane's roles and credited or uncredited status: She has six credited roles including the Ghostbusters credit which I'd like to mention next. Chaunty's role in Ghostbusters was significant and a break through because, although not credited properly, she did play the role of Gertrude Aldridge (whom is a major character in the blockbuster film). She also has 8 TV commercials in two years as well as two listed magazine covers and featured articles about her. She is also in a book sold in Barnes and Noble as well as Amazon.com as a yoga model and is mentioned in the book. WP:NACTOR

Chaunty Spillane is notable and the (WP:NOTINHERITED) does not apply as she is not just the every day actor a lot has accomplished in her career in a short period of time managing to do so while not living in LA or NY. In reference to the text above, the roles actors play is not an easy process, nor is the average local Boston/NY actress gain as much notability and a trending topic as Chaunty has. The actors must work hard and put a lot of effort as well as practice into auditioning first for a role and then waiting to receive a call back if the actor received approval for the role.

I find the idea of scheming to give this article a "firm delete" rather than a "speedy deletion" as stated above is malicious. That kind of behavior is not accepted on Wikipedia as stated in its own guidelines. Various attempts were made to create the article, but there were also a lot of Wikipedia authors who were in favor of and helped by slightly editin the previous attempts mentioned above to create this article to help it remain "live". All in all, the local coverage plus the above "corrected information" regarding crediting of the actress rather than focusing on a few uncredited roles is enough evidence to establish notability. 2601:19B:4300:DF35:451D:A615:71F1:F493 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• IMBd has an entirely different actress listed as Gertrude Aldridge, Bess Rous. Rous is also listed as the performer in this USA Today article, this Mercury News article, and this one by the New Yorker. (There are also people selling photographs signed by Rous at the Ghostbusters premiere.) In other words, there's nothing to substantiate that she plays Aldridge at all - and if she was Aldridge then she desperately needs to get her agent to contact a lot of media outlets. Wikipedia is not a place to make corrections of this nature and until there are massive corrections about the performer in the media, Wikipedia has to assume that she is not Aldridge and that she was only a show girl ghost. I also have to say that I found this link that shows a Facebook post of Spillane's, where she's holding a photograph of herself with the credit "show girl ghost". In other words, there's more evidence to show that she isn't Aldridge and is instead a non-notable background character. If she is, then it's up to Spillane and her agent to correct these errors, not Wikipedia. (And I also need to caution you that it's not a good idea to go about trying to put this on Wikipedia or other outlets before the agent corrects this because if she isn't Aldridge then this can backfire badly on Spillane.) I do also need to point out that if this was her, then that would be her only substantial role to date and odds are this would just redirect to the cast page for the film. As far as her appearing in a book goes, this by itself does not give notability. The book itself would have to have been the subject of RS that mention Spillane's contribution to the work. If her appearance in the book was not substantial (ie, she would not have received an in-depth mention about her participation in any given RS about the work) then that would not give notability. In the end notability must be established via coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is lacking here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I also found this YouTube video of the movie's end credits, which list Bess Rous as Aldridge. All legality of the person recording the end credits aside, I think that this is quite definitive proof that Spillane was not Aldridge - it's possible that news outlets might credit the wrong person, but the movie credits will most certainly bill the proper person, at least in a film such as this and in a role as visible as that one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 17 August 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. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether he meets WP:PROF, originating from different expectations, and the article has been here for almost a month, so it is time to take a break--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Romanovsky[edit]

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

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this person does not seem notable per WP:ACADEMIC. It is not clear at which university he taught or currently teaches. Also, the books mentioned in footnotes 3–5 do not include anything written by a "Daniel Romanovsky". Actually, those three books each include a single reference to the book in footnote 2 (to which Romanovsky contributed a chapter). The only "source" even mentioning his name is a dodgy interview on an Angelfire website, apparently written up by his wife. bender235 (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google Scholar shows several articles cited by numerous others, and Google Books shows him quoted in quite a few books. This just needs someone to cull more information from these sources. Yoninah (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having a handful of citations is enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC requirements. One of the articles listed on Google Scholar lists "Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism" as his affiliation, where he is listed as "Editorial and Abstracting Staff". I'm not sure that is enough. --bender235 (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A GS h-index of 3 is not nearly enough to satisfy WP:Prof. Far WP:Too soon.Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Google Scholar / Google Books citations meet the relevant notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What relevant notability standard? He has only got 15 cites on GS. Several hundred would be the norm for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It might be useful to look him up in Russian, where he did his early work. Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GS covers Russian citations as well. They are just not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Neutral Keep Neutral I started this article since I was using some of his writings as a source for another article. I think he deserves an article (yes I do know that's not part of WP policy ;)) but understand that the sources I provided were not enough by the strict rules here. The one that gives the most information was an interview by an Israeli website. The others were his own articles published in books on the Holocaust and some mentions of his research in other books, all found by Google books. I did purchase one book from Amazon with his article on Belarus under the Germans based on interviews with eyewitnesses. Some of my references are no longer in the article and I did not make the claim that he is a professor -- which I don't think makes any difference one way or the other. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks to bender235 for notifying me of this AFD.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the original references to the article, which should help a little.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to keep after more references were found. Delete still has a case however since the sources talked mainly about his work, not about he himself. However with everything, keep.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After some more consideration I withdrew my keep vote. My understanding of strict WP policy will not allow me to vote to keep without substantial secondary coverage.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The main GS citation contributor (123 citations) is a book by V Rudich...is this mistakenly included in Romanovsky's entry? Some of the other entries are by other authors, as well. Seems to be only a handful of citations to his own work. WoS shows consistent results: his 1999 paper in Holocaust and genocide studies has 6 citations. This is really far below even the borderline of a few hundred citations (where there's legitimate back-and-forth on PROF c1). Majority of refs are pamphlets and web pages. Agricola44 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Did you also check out Google Books? It shows 325. I only looked at the first two pages but they all seem to be about him.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very different from what I see regarding books. When I search the Romanovsky's full name within Google Books, I see around 30 citations, and under WorldCat I don't see any primary-authored books. It appears he's written chapters, but no books. Can you furnish link that shows >300 citations? Agricola44 (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I guess I don't understand how Google Books works. Here's a link to a search for his name: [9]. Most of them seem to be saying that his interviews of Holocaust eyewitnesses are important. I agree with you that he himself is not noted as an author. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=10&q=daniel+romanovsky+holocaust+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5[reply]

That analysis does show a few more than the one I looked at, but only around 50...The succeeding pages seem to contain "Dan" and "Romanovsky", but not "Dan Romanovsky". Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep The opening sentence could be changed to "Daniel Romanovsky is an Israeli historian and researcher who has contributed to works analysing the Holocaust.." I think we have enough sources to back that up. Irondome (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found more than what are being discussed above? Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Irondome. I changed the intro by your suggestion. To me 50 mentions of his contributions, many in books published by universities etc., should be enough to establish his notability as an historian and researcher.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at this I am coming up with considerable material. Irondome (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's part of what we've already been discussing. The statistics are pretty far below the conventional requirements for PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

However, we do appear to over-relying on Google Scholar "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability". Irondome (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he has done significant research work, which is referred to above. I first came across him in the reference in the Stone book referred to. He is notable for his pioneering work on the consequences of the Holocaust in the USSR, which was noted in peer review publications and done in very difficult conditions before he left for Israel. The entry certainly needs to be filled out which I might try and do when I get back to my library next month.Joel Mc (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on "keep" here and the fact that all the standard databases (WoS, GS, WorldCat, Google Books, etc), which we routinely use for academics' AfDs, show mediocre results is very telling. BTW: Science is indeed online all the way back to Volume 1, Number 1 (July 1880) on JSTOR. The salient question is whether there is anything else that would decide the matter conclusively. Agricola44 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism has it's own article. Daniel Romanovsky has been involved as an abstractor in the Posen papers aspect of the project, which has been reliably cited as "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" [[10]]. I think his [involvement] in this project confers notability. Irondome (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed as a "technical editor", among many others, on that volume. Would you kindly have a quick look at WP:PROF for the kinds things that would count toward notability? "Having a unique position in the world of scholarship" is a platitude that can be applied to almost any academic activity. Agricola44 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

He is actually listed as an abstractor. He is or was working on a major academic endeavour. C1 of WP:PROF seems to be satisfied here. "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others." I also note that the subject has given lectures under the auspices of Yad Vashem in various countries. The above quote is hardly a "platitude". I really would suggest we apply common sense here. This is becoming increasingly desperate stuff. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's becoming more desperate. You're trying everything to see what sticks, for example invoking association with Yad Vashem is pleading WP:INHERITED. If an "abstractor" is a person who writes abstracts of other people's work (probably what your link saying he's a "technical editor" means), then that is likewise routine academic work. Agricola44 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Have you actually read any of the links I have given above? Yad Vashem was merely an afterthought, as I would have expected that more than enough evidence has been deployed to justify a provisional keep, allowing for further work on the article. Irondome (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear by my comments that I have indeed been looking at the evidence/links you've offered. I will try to sum-up the evidence in a new thread and maybe you could add whatever you feel I've left out. Would that be good? Agricola44 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• I appreciate the offer of your time and energy. However I have argued as well as I could for a provisional keep, being a relative newcomer to the stimulating area of the project that is AfD. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re, the burden of proof etc...I believe that in order to delete, you need a consensus and I would not go along with that: I have already indicated above why his work is notable. Joel Mc (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember you had some vague remarks about difficult working conditions and unspecified number of citations. Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a historian, I suggest that those who doubt that Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research read "Soviet Jews under Nazi Occupation in Northeastern Belarus and Western Russia" and/or “The Soviet Person as a Bystander”. Joel Mc (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The level of citations he has are not enough for him to pass point 1 for academics. I have seen historians who have a single paper that has twice as many citations as his total body of work have their articles deleted. Romanovsky does not pass any notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too little demonstrated academic impact (such as citations, response-papers, etc) for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. Clearly he exists and has published but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romanovsky is a historian who has done significant research. I am not sure why there is all the discussion whether or not he meets “notability criteria for academics”. There are plenty of historians who are not notable academics and who do notable and significant research. When I came across his name in a scholarly article, I found it useful to be able to get more info about him in WP even if the WP article is a bit of a stub. (I noted that it would be interesting to dig a little and add more info when I have time) I guess that I don’t really understand the need to delete articles which have useful info unless they are libellous or are misinformative. Joel Mc (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This is Joel Mc's second !vote. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Didn't mean to cast two votes, but rather to clarify my earlier comments. Joel Mc (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel Mc: so strike your second vote and just indent your responses to other editors' !votes. Yoninah (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- He appears to have done original work on an important, but this seems to consist of about three academic articles, which is not normally enough for us to keep. Nevertheless, his work seems to be much cited, which might just push him over the edge into keep. Note that the citation indices are not good on arts subjects, such as history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much cited. Can you quantify that? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing actually to suggest enough for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- here's a potentially useful source: The Minsk Ghetto 1941-1943: Jewish Resistance and Soviet Internationalism by Barbara Epstein (a somewhat meaty end-note describing his work). (Edit: I originally linked to the wrong Epstein; the book in question is detailed here). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; would say there is enough for the stub, which is the current status of the article; although weak in notability. If not improved, can be reconsidered later. Kierzek (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. On the basis of the google scholar results, the google books results, and the source provided by [[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman] above, it seems to me that this individual just about meets WP:PROF #!1: namely, having had a significant impact on their field. In this case, Romanovsky seems to have had a significant impact as a researcher of the holocaust; impact cannot be measured solely by the number of GS citations. Vanamonde (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The google scholar cites are tiny-far less than normally required for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete particularly per nom and Xxanthippe. Does not pass WP:PROF qat this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repost: Since this has been reopened I am reposting my comment which I posted on the Holocaust Talk page after jujutacular had decided to delete.

"In commenting on Jujutacular’s puzzling decision (to me) to delete the Romanovsky piece, I said that I would drop the issue and move on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jujutacular#top But I am going back on that decision to support Thoughtmonkey and Poeticbent as they are reiterating the points I made on Jujutacular’s talk page. I might add that as a member of a society which makes its decisions by consensus, I do not recognise Jujutacular’s idea of consensus which overrides a majority of votes. Furthermore, maybe the notability guidelines have a role (but even here not the only role) in deciding to create an article, but as I have already said, I am uncomfortable deleting a referenced article which contains useful info. Heavens know that I have come across many a WP article which seems to me trivial, but I have never thought that they should be deleted. Joel Mc (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His work has been reported in serious secondary sources.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (re prior Keep) -- With the recent work by Poeticbend and ThoughtMonkey, the article has been much improved. I’m not sure if “usefulness” is a criterion in AfD discussions, but there are articles that use the subject as a source. I’ve always found it helpful to be able to click on “author links” in bibliographies to learn more about the author. The article is non trivial and “useful”.

That aside, the subject had an interesting life as a Soviet dissident and made a contribution to Holocaust research. Each of these would have probably been insufficient to establish notability by itself, but taken together, I come to the conclusion that there’s enough notability to sustain an entry. This is also born out by secondary sources that cover the subject’s career and research. I thus reiterate my keep vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (re WP:DRV Keep). Meets WP:N, with now added WP:RS expansion. Poeticbent talk 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At most, Weak Keep (as above) -- His subject is certainly an important one, but his scholarly output seems to be three articles or chapters in collections of essays. That is hardly enough to make him a notable historian. However the importance of the subject takes it beyond the weak delete, that those comments would imply. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I believe it should be noted that, as a researcher, Romanovski was significantly disadvantaged; that is why his output is lower than what's expected of a historian. Studying Holocaust in the Soviet Union in the 1980s was not exactly prohibited, but it was definitely a career limiting move. Moving to a new country mid-career did not confer the same advantages as pursuing it uninterrupted. The research has has done is fairly unique -- the oral histories he collected are irreplaceable as the people he interview most likely have died by now. So on the balance of things, I believe that the article should be kept.

In addition, this source: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II by Leonid Rein, was not considered during the original AfD. It was brought up during deletion review, and has now been added to the article. Rein discusses Romanovski's views and incorporates it into his work. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article has now been discussed in AfD/DRV for an entire month and it is now very clear that the conventional notability guidelines (works that are widely cited, held, reviewed, etc) are not satisfied. Peterkingiron's observation is accurate: Romanovsky's scholarly corpus consists of a small number articles and chapters in collections, none of which have shown significant impact. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. This would seem to explain why the relisting simply continues to push earlier canards: web pages and PDF pamphlets have been added and are now referred to as WP:RS, his work EXISTS (Kitfoxxethe), and the strained pleading from K.e.coffman that asserts special consideration because Romanovsky's work was suppressed under the Soviet system. (K.e.coffman concedes that Romanovsky's "output is lower than what's expected of a historian", but does not seem to recognize the contradiction in his/her position posed by the fact that Romanovsky emigrated to Israel in the 80's and has been a "free scholar" there for almost 30 years.) If this article is ultimately kept, it will represent a significant low-end outlier of WP historian bios. Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment -- Romanovsky's works are being discussed in other works on the related topic. See another example: Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews, Volume 6, edited by David Cesarani. Google books bring up enough citations, I believe. In addition to what's already in the article, I think this is sufficient to satisfy "made an impact in his area of study". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. Yes, I think we've discussed all this already. The Google Books page and individual works you've quoted each represent a single citation to his work...there are around 40 of these by my count of the GB link you furnished (some GB entries do not seem to list his name). At any rate, I absolutely agree that his works are "discussed", but must emphasize that they are simply not discussed at a level that is commensurate with long-established notability guidelines. Moreover, these low numbers are not explained by the "suppresion" that you've claimed. Rather, Romanovsky's corpus of work is simply average in this sense (which is not to say that it isn't interesting, or lacks any other subjective quality that one might consider). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I think that the academic conclusions he reached are interesting, and especially combined with the fact that other Soviet historians shied away from such conclusions, it is worth having this information. My reason is not so much policy based, but bending the rules a bit for a worthy case is also part of Wikipedia policy. Debresser (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• bending the rules a bit for a worthy case: another WP:ILIKEIT. Agricola44 (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep: Per most of the above, and notably we have another case of "googleism," and holding liberal arts scholars to the identical (and inappropriate) standard for scientists... peer review isn't the only indicia of notability, and this individual has multiple other reasons for notability beyond NPROF. Montanabw^(talk) 07:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, but that comment misrepresents the above discussion. We have examined him in the context of being a historian, e.g. His output is indistinguishable from the "average professor" in his field. Most areas of science bios carry much higher notability requirements. We have wagon loads of WP historian bios and, if you start looking through some of them, like Will Durant, you'll find more objective examples of what qualifies as a bio. Even folks whom the mainstream historian community considers to be cranks, like Howard Zinn, have articles here because their works are discussed/critiqued, i.e. noted by others. You assert that Romanovsky has "multiple other reasons for notability": what are they? In the end, it seems like the "keeps" are again hoping for a simply tally-based evaluation of this case, because policy-based reasons for keeping this article are simply not there. Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• There is also WP:BASIC, where an individual who meets GNG does not have to meet a specialty SNG. Here, he has multiple sources of notability, WP:PROF alone is not the sole criterion. The political dissident angle is also significant. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. I am still puzzled by the continued push for deletion. Seems like the words are getting in way of the spirit (Letter and spirit of the law). Joel Mc (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article, as I explained above, but I don't have any connection to Mr. Romanovsky. Just in case that was the issue.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep adding a couple of sources to the article now: an old news article describing his pre-immigration career, and a scholarly article mentioning him in a list of "leading scholars" in his field.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Regardless of the merits of his argument, he does not meet WP:PROF./The standards for academic notability are those applied in the academic field, and Historians normally become notable by publishing books, not journal articles. He has not published a single one. He has published 3 journal articles. They do not lead to recognition as an influential historian. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 26 August 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Phelps Number[edit]

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

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

Cannot find mention of this in anything. No sources listed except the medal table from the current games. WP:NEO or WP:OR possible WP:A11. Savonneux (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP statistic that nobody uses. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence that this is a real thing, much less a notable real thing. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable, nonsense statistic arrived at by dividing each country's medal score by a point-in-time constant value. Neiltonks (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm also not able to verify this in RS, seems made up. Gap9551 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This does not appear to be a real thing. Delete as per WP:MADEUP. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]