< 28 February	1 March >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Axe[edit]

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

A biography of a quack which has been toned down to be less promotional, but still every single source is either primary, unreliable, or in some cases both. There are no reliable independent sources discussing the subject - the closes we get is a quote or two. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, I have asked for review of the article and am working on adding additional, more reliable sources for the article. I would like to have some contributions from some of the contributors versus having it removed. AChrisTurner (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User:AChrisTurner, I think you are wasting your time. The subject is not notable and it is not an article. It is an advertisement littered with many unreliable sources. The first source points to the Palmer College of Chiropractic. It gets worse after that. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. If the guy really did appear on Dr. Oz's show, there should be independent sources verifying it. However, that may not be true and the article does look like a flat out ad. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 01:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @White Arabian Fily and QuackGuru: thank you for the feedback. I genuinely thought/think he was noteworthy enough to be included. I will see what I citable sources I can find related to the Dr Oz aside from the show website itself.
  - User:AChrisTurner, you deleted the tag and added yet again another unreliable source. What are you doing? QuackGuru (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @QuackGuru: that may have been my mistake on that one. I apologize. There wasn't an intention to circumvent. The feedback is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion.
      - User:AChrisTurner, the article might be deleted very soon, as the result of SNOW delete. It may be better you spend your time improving another pages. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        User:QuackGuru Yeah, I thought I found a good, Nashville chiropractor to craft a page for and contribute to Nashville entries in Wikipedia, but I suppose he isn't notable or credible enough at this time. I got interested after reading about his motivation, with his mom having had cancer[1]. Thanks all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AChrisTurner (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sourcing such as New Beauty which describe him as "certified nutrition specialist Josh Axe". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Valoem, the source New Beauty is unreliable. Please explain how it is reliable or please delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff-packed article with a whole lot of ridiculous claims. And a whole lot of practitioners of questionable medicine have appeared on Dr. Oz; that claim means nothing. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. There are traces of notability here, but the sources are not strong enough to confirm it for me. Many appear very similar to the clickbait that pops up on my non-adblocked laptop ("The 8 Complaints Nutritionists Hear Most", "6 Habits You Should Kick In Your 20s, For A Long, Healthy, & Happy Life" and all the others start "The 3..., 5... or 7... ways to be a better person") Others look like advertising.[2] According to the Palmer source[3] (which appears to be a testimonial) he worked with Ryan Lochte, which depending on the level of work might push him close to notable. The only other mention of this is sourced to a biography.com article and as well as being unreliable does not even mention Axe.[4] AIRcorn (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Appearing on the Dr. Oz show and being consulted for a listicle isn't anywhere near enough to establish notability. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies on very poor sources that seem to be the result of rampant self-promotion in mediocre publications. Delta13C (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dr. Axe was notable enough to be included in this cover story in January http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/print-edition/2016/01/08/net-worth-meet-three-nashvillians-making-millions.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremypenguin (talk • contribs) 20:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small newspapers, or content aggregators, do not carry as much weight as major publications. We'd need lots of local + at least regional coverage, but there would still be challenges meeting notability. Delta13C (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:ENT. The new article is substantially the same as the one which the last three AfD's determined did not show sufficient notability to have a stand alone article. The sources are cast announcements/bare mentions and two links to her management agency. Since this article is regularly recreated the title should either be WP:SALTED or, if redirected, full protected until there is actually coverage that passed GNG/ENT. Jbh ^Talk 00:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - per arguments of the nominator. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, which was only 6 months ago. Since the article has been recreated despite the outcome of previous AfDs, I agree with the suggestion to salt it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources have been significantly improved since the last AFD. Refence 1 is a new one and is an article directly about the actress, from the Irish Independent, over 200 words. Reference 9 is a new reference, another article from the Irish Independent, directly about her and although there is an interview in the second half, there are about 400 words of straight prose about her. Reference 12 from The Irish Times is a smaller mention, but altogether I think there is enough RS for WP:Verifiability.Atlantic306 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how good, or how many sources there are, the subject still needs to meet WP:NACTOR, and she doesn't seem to do this. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC and the following paragraph Additional Criteria make clear that WP:NACTOR is a guideline to help determine if RS are likely to be found, and not meeting any of its criteria is not a barrier to inclusion if RS can be found to pass WP:Verifiability ( I've had this explained to me by admin).Atlantic306 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, RS can be used, and should over Nactor, but, these sources have to be in depth. The Irish Indo ones, just about do this, but the others dont discuss the subject in detail. Considering the size of the article and these two sources, the rest mainly listings and mentions dont give a full case for notability yet. Murry1975 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would argue that the actress is just about notable enough to meet Nactor. She has been in three cult television shows, most notably Primeval where she was a leading cast member. The other two are within the past couple of years, and are only recurring roles, but one lasted 11 episodes, so the actress was a pretty major part of that season. All the other credits prior to this are completely throwaway, and are just guest appearances. She is also set to appear as the female lead in Flaked in a couple of weeks time. This seems to be a pretty major role to me, and I'm sure will get a lot of publicity as all Netflix shows seem to do. It is a shame that the writer who recreated this article didn't wait a couple of weeks, because there might be some interviews around which would be better sources, although we can't predict the future. Still she is the female lead in the role, and that will bring additional interest to her. Overall, I think the sources are fine. There's a couple of in-depth interviews, and then the rest are mainly just mentions, but apart from one or two they're a lot better than when the previous deletion discussions took place. Finally, since the article was recreated it has averaged over 1000 views per day. This seems to indicate there is significant interest in the actress. I also don't think it would be wise to salt, because it can only be a matter of time before there are enough sources for an article (if there aren't now), perhaps even a few weeks. There's obviously interest in the actress, so we shouldn't make it difficult to recreate the article, ans she's hardly a controversial figure. Having said that I would still be for keeping the article now.IdenticalHetero (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still averaging over 1000 view per day, I would be much more of a strong keep now. There's plenty of interest in the actress IdenticalHetero (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page views can be used to determine the primary topic, but aren't relevant to determining notability or whether a page should be kept. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant role in Primeval and a lead in Flaked satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources have been significantly improved since the article was initially recreated. Even today I added an interview from a magazine. There's more interviews, and some good websites, such as Deadline and Variety. Most importantly it satisfies WP:NACTOR Somethingwickedly (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important role plus newspaper coverage focused on her meets GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent, ongoing, international newspaper coverage meets GNG. 3rd AfD close was improper as NAC closing against numerical consensus to keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant roles in three or four television shows is good enough notability wise (GNG/ENT), with other minor roles as well. Been significantly improved since it was recreated. Sources are good enough with a few good interviews and good websites/newspapers. Cindlevet (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Warwick[edit]

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

can't really see anything notable. was a tv presenter for a few years in the 90s. now gets a little bit of coverage in non-notable websites related to property venture Rayman60 (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:ENTERTAINER. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to establish notability - clearly failed. Paul W (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Cesarine[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. This interview on a fairly obscure and specialist website is the only source I can find that directly addresses the subject. The other references cited are mere mentions and searches in google news, book and factiva have not turned up anything better. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was quite surprised when this passed AFC to begin with. However, hardly uninvolved since recently exasperated by her PR flacks. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Pride Day[edit]

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

Most sources don't cover Autistic Pride Day in depth, and it is hard to find reliable sources on it. Ylevental (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another bad faith nomination by this user. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give actual reasons. Ylevental (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You are acting in bad faith. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did the other person propose a weak delete? Ylevental (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless notable sources can be found. I personally have never heard of such event. Nordic Dragon 08:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep. Plenty of notable sources on Google, most of which can be incorporated in the article. Nordic Dragon 08:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't look hard enough. But it's always good to double-check. Ylevental (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nordic Dragon 58.162.201.207 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR diecast[edit]

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

The article isn't notable and is basically a type of a Die-cast toy made by several different companies. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There doesn't appear to be any reason why this is notable as a die-cast toy. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extreme fancruft; if you're in NASCAR your car has been shrunk down to tiny Hot Wheels form unless you were in the 50's. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nordic Dragon 08:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need an article for every type of die-cast toy. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any real assertion of notability. Also, the article's sole reference is the web site that sells the things. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:31, 1 March 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 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon20[edit]

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

As a notable event, this doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Also, with the lack of references establishing notability, this article seems like a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Also, the article Pokémon already includes a couple of brief mentions of the fact that the Pokémon franchise recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, which seems to be about as notable as this event seems to be. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much a press release translated into a Wiki article, and badly. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not at all enough for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Prompri (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@STEEL i have added much ref I could, u have to understand i don't have much time, besides wiki I have to take prep for math & science olympiads.
It doesn't seems like a news, general people are interested in this event,I am new to wiki & that was m 1st article,Do whatever u like bro :) (I don't know"whether wiki accepts fancy usernames like 'swistwis or steel' or not")

(in wikia, admins of central community would consider that user as a sock puppet) [n.b.: Wikia is also a part of wikimedia] Prompri (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing Promise.scout (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds are you opposing, @Promise.scout:? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event, basic coverage in the main article will suffice. -- ferret (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, event not covered by reliable sources, merely mentioned in passing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made heavy edits and this event has had alot of media coverage, so it is undeniably notable. The original poster was lax in almost all work and format, but the article has been rewritten and added to to fix it. Please reconsider the deletion. Lucasstar1 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...And now, all references in the article were removed. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...And soon after reappeared Lucasstar1 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources help verify that those individual products are being released. They do nothing to aid the notability of the topic as a whole, especially as 3 appear to be primary sources. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All this is, is a marketing campaign that's happening this year with it being the 20th anniversary from the first game. Similar to the Year of Luigi of a few years back, its something that could be a redirect or mention on the main article, and maybe even mentioned in the development section of any games released, as being a minor part of these game's marketing schemes, but there's no reason for a whole article here. The sourcing focuses much more on the games than the marketing buzzwords associated with them.Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Elder Robison[edit]

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

Most of the information in this article is in the book Look Me in the Eye and should be merged into this article. Relies too heavily on self-published sources. Ylevental (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Between the multiple books, the activism, and the highly talked about resignation, there's a lot of coverage.Darmokand (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I expand it? Ylevental (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another bad faith nomination by this user per the AfD's for Jim Sinclair (activist), Retrospective diagnoses of autism and Autism Network International. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other recent nominations by the same editor: Wrong Planet, Autistic Pride Day, Aspies For Freedom, Amy Sequenzia, Autistic Self Advocacy Network... On the other side of the coin is the editor's COI GA nomination for Jonathan Mitchell (along with accusations of sock puppetry there. Do we perhaps need an ANI thread to straighten this out? - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhDv2.0, I've noticed the same thing. The only upside to all of the AfD nominations is that they are helping to further source the articles they nominated, but it's also frustrating. The common thread is that the nominator is targeting Autistic organizations that promote a "non cure" approach to dealing with autism, whereas Jonathan Mitchell wants to "cure" autism. It seems like these camps are diametrically opposed. Normally, I focus on women's bios, but I have family members with autism, so these AfD nominations have been troubling to me. I don't think an investigation is out of line. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl ANI aside, what do the nominations have to do with you having family members with autism? I am on the spectrum too. Ylevental (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental, it means I'm interested in the topic, I thought that would be clear. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to reliable sources, he's known for more than being an author of the book. CatPath (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to understand your reasoning for deletion, Ylevental. Third-party sources are quoted there and the guy is notable beyond his book. Zezen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am John Elder Robison, the subject of this article and page. I distressed to find that user Leventhal has seemingly mounted a campaign to destroy the usefulness of the page. I see some things have been removed for lack of citations, and other things on the page are wrong.

First of all, I see the information about my work in music was deleted for lack of references. The story of my work with KISS and Britannia Row (Pink Floyd's sound company in the 70s) was told in my book Look Me in the Eye and it's widely discussed online, etc. This link goes to a blog post of mine that offers some facts and photos of me and my work from that period. You are welcome to use the photos of me, my son, my late ex-wife, and my KISS stuff including my photo ID under the Wikimedia Creative Commons license on my page. http://jerobison.blogspot.com/p/the-kiss-guitars-and-my-life-in-music.html

The article says I was married twice. Actually I was married three times. 1st - Mary Lee Trompke (died 2014) who is the mother of my son Jack "Cubby" Robison 2nd - Martha Schuette who still owns Robison Service with me. 3rd - Maripat Jordan - writer and neurodiversity activist

The article also has at times said I am self-diagnosed. That is incorrect and it's an important error to fix. I was diagnosed by a therapist friend at age 40, as described in the chapter "A Diagnosis at Forty" in Look Me in the Eye. Later, when I joined various autism research studies, I was diagnosed using the "gold standard" ADOS screening tools at Harvard Medical School and the University of Pennsylvania autism clinic. I have also been diagnosed using both conventional and experimental techniques at other institutions in the USA and Europe.

The article has said at various times that I "Worked for Autism Speaks." That is not true. I was a member of the science board from 2008-2013 and resigned in protest after the founder made remarks that I felt were offensive to autistic people. That resignation letter is widely circulated online and cited in my page. I was never an AS employee; I was a volunteer board member.

Leventhal has also attacked the Wikipedia pages for Look Me in the Eye, and other places I am mentioned. I see most of the foreign editions of my book have been removed for "lack of citation" What sort of proof is expected, beyond a name and a publisher? I am going to post the names and publishers, and photos here as soon as I figure out how to put up photos.

I'd be happy to talk to any of you who are interested in constructive editing of this page. You can write me through Wikipedia mail or you can look me up on the William & Mary neurodiversity page.

Thanks John Elder RobisonJohnElderRobison (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 --JohnElderRobison (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless in a College Town[edit]

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

Author deleted PROD, so moving to AfD. Fails WP:FILMNOT -- only second-party coverage is brief and only in small mostly-local publications. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film by blatant COI SPA (now blocked); no evidence of notability submitted. (I especially liked the SPA's removal of the PROD with the specious and misleading edit summary of "Added reference for awards section." Such sources that are presented are bits from small local papers, interviews of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE, and blogsites. The only article from a significant reliable source -- the Hartford Courant one -- is a blatant press release. For what it's worth, I've never heard of the filmmakers, and I both live in the next town over and subscribe to the county's alternative arts weekly. Ravenswing 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep They're only blocked because of the username issue, at present. A Gnews search does reveal distinct bylined news articles from several Mass. newspapers and news sites. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these appear to be somewhat primary, as they're written by the college. However... I do see that the cow sculpture appears to have been directly influenced by the film so we may be able to justify notability for this by including a subsection for the sculpture specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although it might be better to try to see if we could have one article for the film company and mention the cow and film in one subsection. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... what would make that cow sculture notable? It's featured in nothing beyond the same small town weekly press as the subject. And since notability isn't inherited even were the sculture highly notable ... Ravenswing 08:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. purely local. no encyclopedic interest. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually because although my searches easily found local news articles at News and browsers, they are still not solid enough thus the article is still simply questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 -- this is just advertising for them DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Cow Productions[edit]

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

Author deleted PROD tag, so moving to AfD. No indication of notability here -- only claim of significance is winning a couple small local awards. IagoQnsi (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. If they grow into something notable down the road a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete non-notable outfit by blatant COI SPA (now blocked); no evidence of notability submitted, or existing. (I especially liked the SPA's removal of the PROD with the specious and misleading edit summary of "Added reference for awards section." For what it's worth, I've never heard of these folks, and I both live in the next town over and subscribe to the county's alternative arts weekly. Ravenswing 23:33, 29 February 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 nomination withdrawn as first commenter figured out that these were copied from existing articles, making them A10 speedies. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart history 1995[edit]

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

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

Two articles which list what I'm presuming are the #1 singles on a pop chart, but which completely fail to specify or source what pop chart they hit #1 on. This is a type of article that we do allow for certain notable charts that pass WP:CHARTS, if the information in them can be referenced as accurate -- but if the article is unsourced, and doesn't even contain enough context for us to determine whether the chart in question is a notable one or an individual radio station or a user's own self-created blogchart, then that's not an article we can keep. Delete, unless somebody can actually figure out what chart is involved here. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong delete. It was taken from List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1995 and List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 1996 without any attribution, per WP:CWW. (Some replacement with garbage entries in the 1996 article, like who's Nursey?) Even at that, the articles lack any context for the info shown in them. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh, thanks, barnstar for figuring that out. On that basis, accordingly, I'm going to withdraw this nomination and speedy them both as duplications of existing topics. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Planet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage in the media of WrongPlanet is generally repetitive and trivial. It would be better to merge the information into the Alex Plank article, since most of the articles are about Plank. Ylevental (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This edit is rather, um, questionable and should probably be explained, Ylevental. I'm also wondering if you have a conflict of interest here. Care to comment? - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I was just referring to the two murders connected with the site at the bottom, though I don't know if it makes sense to put it at the top. I have no conflict of interest, as I am not an admin nor a moderator. Ylevental (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination based in personal opinion derived from a blog run by a person with whom this user does have an admitted COI connection. See here for one example. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the nominator's connection is, but the non-response response, the heavy-handed edits[5][6] and another eventual acknowledgment of a COI (here) lead to the my question. That said, I'm trying to see if there is a reason to delete here. The nominator concluded the site "has been noted"[7], but feels the coverage in media has been "generally repetitive and trivial". "Repetitive"? I don't care. "Trivial"? I disagree, as did both of the prior AfD discussions. The site is clearly notable. IMO, that notability is clearly independent of its creator and a merge would result in an article that either loses substantial portions of the material here or meanders between topics. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further review shows I was not careful enough Ylevental (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To hide your bias? Yeah you're right. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to add what hasn't already been said about this article's notability. 1.136.97.105 (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This nomination doesn't have a leg to stand on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. I have also reverted the move of Aryan Khan. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan khan[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being the child of a movie star; however, this is not enough to warrant an independent article (just ask Brooklyn Beckham). The article talks a lot about Aryan Khan being "destined" to be a star, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so he should not have his own article until he actually is a star. Also, even if the article were to be kept, it is horrendously promotional in tone, to the point where I think it'd be hard to salvage it into a decent article without just doing a rewrite. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Shah Rukh Khan#Early life and family. Per WP:FUTURE. Vipinhari || talk 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect is inappropriate - should every child of every article worthy subject have a redirect.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article also, I think, inappropriately moved the original subject Aryan Khan to an incorrect (by wikipedia standards) name. If this article gets deleted the original; should be moved back even though it too is of questionable notability. If it doesn't get deleted the renaming gets more complicated.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a fan page.-Managerarc™^talk 20:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 09:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Sequenzia[edit]

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

There is only one significant article focusing on her, and Huffington Post might not even be a reliable source. Ylevental (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another bad faith nomination by this user, who is trying to dispose of articles that promote autism positively. Huffington Post is a reliable source. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes GNG. I added a few more sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 2 March 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 by DESiegel, CSD A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian Latin alphabet[edit]

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

This so-called Tunisian Latin alphabet seems to be the creation of its sole contributor on Wikipedia. It falsely claims to be one of the two writing systems for writing Tunisian Arabic yet has no sources to corroborate the claim. Although the article has certainly been written in good faith, it fails to meet notability criteria and is WP:OR. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at http://tuni1259.org/2016/02/28/busy-publishing-this-month/ it becomes evident that this Wikipedia article is essentially written about someone's blog, by the blog's own creator. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't realize this was "made up" so I hadn't paid much attention, but I have had one or more alphabet-related articles come up in my watchlist with information about the "Tunisian Latin alphabet" added to them. It should probably be removed if it's bogus. Specifically, it would seem that the contributions list of this article's main editor shows they are a single-purpose account solely adding information about this supposed Tunisian alphabet in various places on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as although further comments would've been welcomed and beneficial, the current article seems acceptable enough with convincing enough sources to keep for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Self Advocacy Network[edit]

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

Relies too much on primary sources. Most of ASAN is composed of Ari Ne'eman and it would be better to merge the information into his article. No articles and books significantly focusing on this organization. Ylevental (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad faith nomination again by this user, attacking an organisation that supports autistics and promotes it positively. Members of ASAN have been and are members of the IACC. Significant, and notable. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was originally mostly sourced from the ASAN website. I added news sources to support the claims and expanded the article somewhat. It passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization is mentioned quite a lot in the popular Neurotribes, Steve Silberman, and that, in turn, is referenced by the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-next-civil-rights-movement-accepting-adults-with-autism/2015/07/20/e7c6743e-f338-11e4-bcc4-e8141e5eb0c9_story.html This is the third deletion notice I've come across in relation to autism. And that is not good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dat Cryspal (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 March 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, CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Profile101) in violation of ban or block. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government Contracting Model[edit]

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

Written by a sock, appears to be written like an essay with plenty of original research. Appears to be copied from an OR website: https://publictransportsg.wordpress.com/government-contracting-model/ Nordic Dragon 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G5, as it was created by a sock of a banned user and the only other edit to it is an IP address lowercasing a couple of words. --McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercantile Capital Corporation[edit]

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

Nonnotable business. Claims of notability are a couple of local "business of the year" awards. However the article texts says nothing concrete what makes this company encyclopedic. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete lots of press release coverage. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches only found a few expected passing mentions, nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A10. Duplicate of Syed Qazi Muzainul Haq that does not expand upon, detail or improve information about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Qazi Ibadul Haq[edit]

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

copied from Syed Qazi Muzainul Haq Captain Spark (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It doesnt matter where it copied from, but the fact is this person is absolutely nonnotable for wikipedia. -

He is a recent time islamic scholar, thats what make him notable.He was Imam e Jumah at Wasa Dargah.He translated Zarb e Yyadullahi in Hindi and worked towards humanity.He was supporter of unity of Islam and unoty among different religions of Islam. üser:Altenmann >t 15:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 29 February 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria Bahiana[edit]

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

Reference links are broken Prof TPMS (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. DanielGSouza (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DanielGSouza (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep Notability is easily establishes [8] by google search. And the nominator has to carefully learn how AfD works: due diligence, deletion criteria, etc.. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she passes GNG. I added some sources and encourage anyone who reads Portuguese to help add to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Also, quite old articles in Spanish and Portuguese exist for a long time. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep No valid reason for deletion presented by nominator. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A10 of Sweetie (internet avatar) or A2 of NL:Wikipedia Jac16888 ^Talk 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie internet avatar[edit]

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

It is not written in English Prof TPMS (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is meant to be on the Dutch wikipedia, is it on the English one? There is already a page on Sweetie in English and I wanted to link the two (which I can't at this point) so that people can read more about the subject in Dutch. It contains valuable and referenced information on the subject. --Mapholius-Detenta (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge translated (easily with google translate) into Sweetie (internet avatar). - üser:Altenmann >t 15:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Dutch Wikipedia. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Soap Opera Universe[edit]

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

Page holds absolutely no reliable sources and is composed of complete original research and fan-cruft information composed by a user. livelikemusic talk! 14:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (1) I can find no evidence anywhere that the concept "ABC Soap Opera Universe" has received any coverage anywhere other than in this Wikipedia article. (2) The article is a mixture of unnecessary repetition of content contained in other articles, unsourced original comment, and unexplained lists of titles without context. (For example, what on earth does it mean to say that "Vogue Fashion Magazine" and "The Sun" are "Interconnected Media?") The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while technically such universes might be notable, there's no indication this one is, and even if it was the content would likely need to be rewritten in its entirety. Huon (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Quite obviously an essay or original research and should have been PRODed as such by patroller Lithopsian. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General Hospital Characters (2015-)[edit]

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

Page holds absolutely no reliable sources and is composed of complete original research and fan-cruft information composed by a user. Page also could be seen as a less-than effective version of the General Hospital cast members page, and the sub-divison character pages. livelikemusic talk! 14:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or merge~~ - to List of General Hospital characters, which includes all years of the show. There is also General Hospital characters (2010s). There are a lot of lists for this soap opera, but none except this one that singles out one year for a list of characters. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing to delete after a second comparison of names on both lists. It does seem to be a duplication.— Maile (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless fork of [[List of Gene>al Hospital characters]], adding nothing of value. (Note: There is nothing to merge, as the page contains nothing but a list of names, while List of General Hospital characters already contains both names and other information, and there is no point in redirecting, as nobody looking for a list of characters is likely to search for precisely "General Hospital Characters (2015-)", and in any case, in the unlikely event that they do so, before they get as far as typing in the whole of that title into the search box they will be offered a drop-down list which includes General Hospital Characters, which redirects to List of General Hospital characters.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary for yearly articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 1 March 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 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Charter[edit]

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

I don't see evidence that this is a notable business, meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviostart
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Jet Aircompany

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airline companies are generally notable. There is coverage online and in English that arguably satisfies GNG, but we need to know the name of the airline in Ukrainian. This being Ukrainian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Ukrainian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Ukraine, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Airline companies are generally notable." Even if it's true, that's an observation, not a rule.

If a topic is notable, then it's notable regardless of the notability of topics in the same category. If a topic isn't notable, then, likewise, its lack of notability isn't affected by the notability or non-notability of topics in the same category. Therefore, the argument "This topic is in category X, and topics in category X are generally notable" isn't a valid argument in evaluating the notability of a topic.

There isn't anything special about this article or this topic such that deleting it on the grounds of failing WP:N would be any more a violation of WP:ATD or WP:PRESERVE than the deletion of every other article that is removed on the grounds of a lack of notability. WP:ATD doesn't even apply here. Its thesis is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." A lack of notability cannot be resolved by improving a page, as it's a characteristic of the topic, not the content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a plausible (ie non-harmful) redirect violates ATD and R. Deleting mergeable content violates ATD and PRESERVE. Without exception, whether the topic is notable or not. We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article. There is such a fanbase and publishing industry for all things aeroplane related that it is unlikely that an airline company would not receive significant coverage. I can think of an explanation of why there may be offline coverage (GBooks is, as far as I am aware, not digitising the contents of Ukrainian libraries and seems to have a pronounced bias towards America and Britain because that is where it gets books from) and in the absence of a search for paper sources in a well stocked national or university library in Ukraine, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about a redirect here so your comment about WP:R is irrelevant.

How seriously do you expect us to take the proposition that the deletion of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that has occurred over all these years under the clearly laid out provisions for doing so is in violation of Wikipedia's rules? Fact: We routinely delete articles for failing WP:N.

"We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article." No, we do not accept the proposition that because one person has declared something, from his own impressions, likely to meet GNG that we declare it to meet GNG whether or not it actually does.

When someone questions the notability of a topic, telling us without evidence that you just assume the topic meets GNG isn't a helpful response. A useful response is one that shares findings that demonstrate that that topic meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

Frankly, I don't understand the idea that any time someone with an aviation background decides to buy a couple of planes to hire out, the business is automatically notable. Is every cab driver who goes into business for himself notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here, which deals with the essence of your arguments. It would have been better to either bundle the three nominations or run them one at a time, instead of forcing me to repeat myself twice. James500 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article is a potential redirect to a list article is absurd, it's "not even wrong"; if accepted it would apply to every article on Wikipedia and we could never AfD anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Ukrainian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that this airline definitely does scheduled flights (see this), and I am told by User:Arxiloxos at the Baltic Jet Aircompany AfD that our general practice is to keep airlines that do scheduled flights. James500 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references used in the article are all database entries any airline would have, and additional searches failed to turn up coverage outside of similar database entries. Elaenia (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a number of GHits under "Аеро Чартер" or "Аеро-Чартер", though they appear mundane and mostly of questionable reliability. The Ukranian Wikipedia voted to delete its article. WP:WikiProject Aviation/Notability points at WP:Notability (Transportation)#Airlines, and that just lists discussion in multiple, reliable sources. Even if common practice happens to be to retain airlines with scheduled flights, I'm not convinced that it's warranted here with cargo rather than passenger flights, and the contents of the article appears at risk of being and becoming inaccurate given the lack of RS and that it appears to be a snapshot of a particular time. Did the airline always operate with the listed destinations and aircraft? Does the airline still exist, and if not when did it cease operations? ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a cargo transportation company that uses airplanes, not inherently notable as such; and otherwise does not appear to meet WP:GNG. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 9 March 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 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Jet Aircompany[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No coverage meeting WP:GNG. No notability under WP:CORP. No indication of significance in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviostart
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Charter

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airline companies are generally notable. There is coverage online and in English that arguably satisfies GNG, but we need to know the Latvian name of this operator as well. This being Latvian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Latvian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Latvia, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Airline companies are generally notable." Even if it's true, that's an observation, not a rule.

If a topic is notable, then it's notable regardless of the notability of topics in the same category. If a topic isn't notable, then, likewise, its lack of notability isn't affected by the notability or non-notability of topics in the same category. Therefore, the argument "This topic is in category X, and topics in category X are generally notable" isn't a valid argument in evaluating the notability of a topic.

There isn't anything special about this article or this topic such that deleting it on the grounds of failing WP:N would be any more a violation of WP:ATD or WP:PRESERVE than the deletion of every other article that is removed on the grounds of a lack of notability. WP:ATD doesn't even apply here. Its thesis is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." A lack of notability cannot be resolved by improving a page, as it's a characteristic of the topic, not the content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a plausible (ie non-harmful) redirect violates ATD and R. Deleting mergeable content violates ATD and PRESERVE. Without exception, whether the topic is notable or not. James500 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC) We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article. There is such a fanbase and publishing industry for all things aeroplane related that it is unlikely that an airline company would not receive significant coverage. I can think of an explanation of why there may be offline coverage (GBooks is, as far as I am aware, not digitising the contents of Latvian libraries and seems to have a pronounced bias towards America and Britain because that is where it gets books from) and in the absence of a search for paper sources in a well stocked national or university library in Latvia, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't discussing a redirect here. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day, in accordance with the very explicit and detailed provisions for doing so, so you might need to tune your perspective that doing so is a gross violation of grand principles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. James500 (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that we aren't discussing a redirect, or you disagree that hundreds of articles are deleted every day despite your notion that this is a gross violation of Wikipedia's rules? —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here, which deals with the essence of your arguments. It would have been better to either bundle the three nominations or run them one at a time, instead of forcing me to repeat myself twice. James500 (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article is a potential redirect to a list article is absurd, it's "not even wrong"; if accepted it would apply to every article on Wikipedia and we could never AfD anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. I think our general practice has been to keep articles about scheduled airlines. I strongly support that precedent, but this company's website seems to indicate that this is solely a charter airline, and in general I think charter airlines have been required to show they meet GNG. If I've missed something about scheduled flights, please let me know. Otherwise I find nothing in English to support notability here; if there's something in Latvian I'm certainly willing to reconsider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Latvian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability (WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer here. James500 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 3 March 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 Bloody Roar#Characters. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloody Roar characters[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) None of its sources discuss characters of the series as a topic, and there doesn't appear to be anything that could help in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect or selective merge to the series article (Bloody Roar#Characters) could suffice, but there's no reason to split out in this much primary source detail without secondary source coverage as justification for the split. czar 13:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 13:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 13:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The first paragraphs of the sections seem to detail the characters where as the rest seems to go on about game plots and events. I noticed that most of the text is just taken from this Wiki: http://bloodyroar.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters. Since that Wiki exists and with the same text, I think we can with safe conscience just delete most of the text and only have brief characterizations. Lastly I think it's a somewhat of an obscure series. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition for some reason the main article of the series is completely without sources: Bloody Roar. It's also bit of a stub for a series article. I think a Merge will do nicely. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bloody Roar as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the reception from secondary sources already in the article, and sources such as these that talk about one or more Bloody Roar characters [9] [10] [11]. Those ones I found after a quick search, and these should be enough to pass the WP:GNG. I'll try to find more later. I see no good reason to cram all the characters on the series article. @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:, how do you know that wiki didn't just take the text from that page on this wiki, rather than the other way around? Either way, the article should be fixed, not merged or deleted. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent, based on the Ken Rosenberg RFC, is that video game character listicle entries are alone insufficient to substantiate a full article. Serge has more on how these individual sources fare below, and it is hard to dispute that the listicle entries say next to nothing about the characters nevertheless the series. Furthermore there's nothing to show that the characters, as an entity, are somehow better known separately or in voluminous detail from the series. czar 00:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Ken Rosenberg is just one case (which it's outcome I still disagree with). We don't need to necessarily base everything around that decision. The idea that listicles shouldn't be used to establish notability, regardless of context, is just ridiculous and overly strict. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that is the difference between an individual opinion and a substantive consensus. The three links above don't even come close to the coverage Ken Rosenberg had, but the point is that scraping together a few mentions (especially in low-quality listicles) does not constitute significant coverage for a dedicated encyclopedia article. czar 03:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the over-arching series article. That one's pretty short while this list is 95% original research. I don't see why any useful content couldn't exist within Bloody Roar. If it does get too big for the series article at some point, it can always be split again, but that would probably need a lot more than five or six sources. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, albeit it extremely selectively, as it seems to be overwhelmingly unsourced in-universe ramblings about the characters rather than encyclopedic entries. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per points raised by Kokoro20. The series article is a bit small, but that in itself can be expanded and doesn't need its characters cluttering it up. I don't believe the solution for expanding that article is to merge the characters into it. I do believe though that the character descriptions can be trimmed down, add some development (or an overall concept and creation section), and more reception. --JDC808 ♫ 18:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sourcing is extremely weak though. I mean, what are you supposed to do with this source? Its a few sentences worth of "Wouldn't it be cool if this crossover game happened?" The Complex sources aren't much better. They could source a factoid here or there, but I fail to see how one would write a WP:GNG-passing, non-in-universe article around them... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say the sourcing was strong. I didn't even look at the sources, but rather Kokoro90's willingness to find sources (as they said, those were just from a quick search). I'll leave it to the editor(s) to find more, reliable sources, and give them time to try and make this a suitable character list with my suggestions. --JDC808 ♫ 22:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what are you saying then? Are you giving an "Keep" !vote based on weak sourcing and someone giving it some effort, only to come up with really weak sources? Because that's pretty much the extent of his argument. That's...not the strongest rationale... Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying keep and give the editor(s) time to edit the article and actually find sources beyond a "quick search". They're obviously willing to improve the article, so I say give them a shot. --JDC808 ♫ 00:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, article currently is WP:GAMETRIVIA. Look, Bloody Roar was never the most popular series and the latest release was in 2003. What possible sources can be found beyond what the custom Google search engine shows in the first three pages? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Prakash Kala[edit]

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

This article achieves superficial referenciness by using links to, for example, Amazon sales pages. There are no substantive sources here, and the only significant non-promotional edit I can find in the history is stubbing by @DGG:. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good man, but unclear how he meets our notability guidelines for professors. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 24. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I don't understand why his employer profile lists him as an assistant professor [12] when his citation record [13] looks so strong. Anyway, I agree with Xxanthippe that he passes WP:PROF#C1. His Google scholar profile is a bit of a mess (the top-cited entry actually merges two papers and then the second paper is listed separately but crossed out) but I think the actual numbers with this mistake fixed (213 cites for "Ethnomedicinal botany of the Apatani in the Eastern Himalayan region of India", 190 for "Developing the medicinal plants sector in northern India: challenges and opportunities", then 160, 159, 143, etc) are quite strong; also several of these papers are singly authored so there's no concern of sharing credit. The reason my keep is only weak is that if one looks a little more in-depth at the citations themselves, something looks off. E.g. among the 213 papers citing his top paper, seven of them begin "An ethnobotanical survey was", four of them begin "Plants have traditionally been used as a source of medicine", etc. Is such a high level of copying typical in this area? If so maybe we should discount the numbers somehow. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. There does seem to be self-citation. Thus Weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Remember. notability guidelines are only indications of the type of subject who is likely to be notable - i.e. for whom reliable independent sources are likely to exist. ere, none are presented. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Take a look at the scholar link. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Specifically this quote from it: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines ... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline....[I]f an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we can read too much into the similarity of wording. For example three of these four papers have the same authors, and in any field of study certain phrases become pretty standard. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above AusLondonder (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. I agree w/ David that the cites look a bit fishy, but if it's true that they're not real cites, it's not just WP misrepresentation, it's overall academic fraud (that would concern not just his having a WP article, but his whole research and career), and there's a limit to what AfD voters can be expected to or should adjudicate. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and the arguments already used in that regard. First Light (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyuki Akaza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no reliable independent sources. It has a publisher's resume (not independent) and claim of one paper being much cited, for which the source is the paper itself. It claims he has published "more than 17" (how many? 18?), but fewer than 20 published papers is not a lot, frankly. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no factual description how exactly this person is notable and no independent coverage. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this is worthy of further investigation. He is the head of what seems to be a very important research organization at Tokyo University. The translation of the English pages describing the organization is not fantastic, but there are more details in the Japanese-language sources. I found via a quick search that he is also the lead editor of the latest edition of the Japanese textbook on Urology. I haven't looked at any guidelines about what makes a researcher/doctor/author notable, but on the face of it I think this is worthy of a proper examination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by @Xxanthippe: (based on h-index of 39) and @David Eppstein: and @Randykitty: (based on top citation counts) in the 2013 AfD. These numbers were good enough 2 years ago and they can only have stayed the same or gotten better since then. See WP:PROF#C1 -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof as per first AfD. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. After the ping, I checked the citation record again. With 18 papers in Google scholar having >100 citations, it's an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. I'm not convinced that the presidencies listed in the article are enough by themselves, but they're also corroborative evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Chertavian[edit]

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

Overly Promotional article for non notable entrepreneur. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year Up for his organisation. Claim of bestselling is not sourced. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the current sourcing: 1. NYTimes is an article by him, not about him. 2-5. His orgs website, not independent. 6. Not a reliable source. 7. Press release. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient evidence of notability from independent sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very highly promotional eg " he would have to travel a difficult path to realize his potential." " the enormous talent and potential going to waste in America" , "dvocates for broader systems change to increase opportunities for disconnected young adults." ; and with inadequate sources. Created in single edit by obvious spa who is very unlikely to have been a genuine new editor. This might be a g11 speedy . DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this currently simply not convincing enough, my searches simply found nothing better than expected coverage at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 1 March 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 HIT 107. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinyl Soul[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not here for self promotion. Not notable. Lacks coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn podcast. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - no evidence of noteworthiness given - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- or indeed redirect per Shaidar - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent radio station, HIT 107, where the podcast's presenter is the music director.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:26, 2 March 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 Nomination withdrawn -- intgr [talk] 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afsar khan ( politician)[edit]

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

No notability Prof TPMS (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew nomination for deletion as per talk page consensus.

--Prof TPMS (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Prof tpms: Coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is sufficient for notability per WP:GNG criteria, and 3 news articles are cited in the article. If you believe these are not sufficient, please be less terse and state your reasons in the nomination. -- intgr [talk] 10:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Intgr: This gentleman belongs to a political party called AIMIM which itself is not notable with only one lone seat in the Indian Parliament. --Prof TPMS (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof tpms: If you put it like that, then I'm afraid you don't understand the general notabiliy guideline. How notable this person's party is, or how many seats it has in a parlament, does not matter to notability (WP:NOTINHERIT). What matters is the number and quality of sources about the article's subject. -- intgr [talk] 11:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Intgr: I understand. --Prof TPMS (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, satisfies WP:GNG. While there isn't much content in the article, there are many English-language sources available about this person (linked in the article), and probably lots more in Hindi. Based on the English-language sources alone, I think it satisfies the GNG. -- intgr [talk] 13:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1 by being a multiply-elected MLA. (The article title should be standardised after the conclusion of the AfD.) AllyD (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily satisfied WP:POLITICIAN has he was elected MLA. --Soman (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiliki Maliaros[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Besides, Maliaros only appeared in one movie. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 07:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently the only work, and best known for that matter, is The Exorcist, so none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately only one role at the age of 89, in Exorcist, cast as an unknown, died before the film was released, WP:ONEEVENT. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-amin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chino 'Fats' Williams[edit]

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

His list of credits is too skinny to satisfy WP:NACTOR. He's mentioned in an LA Times article about his son. That's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This character actor had many roles in popular Hollywood films and television series. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a bit player in some movies and having significant roles in them is not the same. Let's look at the references: the passing mention in the LA Times article I noted before, an AllMovie credits listing echoed on The New York Times site, and a TV Guide list of credits. Not even close to satisfying WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a hefty article in the November 1977 edition of Ebony. While that's ONESOURCE, there may have been other coverage in (eg) offline African-American entertainment/lifestyle magazines of the 1970s-80s. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could certainly use some improvement, but his part in Weird Science alone makes him notable. It's an iconic scene. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the detailed article in Ebony as mentioned above, which would suggest that other offline sources may be available Atlantic306 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qumi Qumi[edit]

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

Non-notable cartoon, fails WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we'd need someone fluent in Russian to assess coverage. See these sources. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 29 February 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 Tactical Technology Collective. MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NGO In A Box South Asia[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Dweller (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any sources to indicate notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Tactical Technology Collective. The parent project, NGO in a box, could conceivably become an article when the amount knowledge on the TTC justifies this, that is not now. For NGO in a box South Asia it is very early to have an article and I doubt whether this will ever be justified. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 2 March 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 22:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Falcor Netflix (JavaScript library)[edit]

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

I have searched extensively, and failed to finds any evidence that this subject comes near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I found a download site which stores Netflix Falcor, blog posts, a page asking for help in developing Netflix Falcor, a page on a website which exists to publicise "Internet-based application programming interfaces", Twitter, YouTube, etc, but nothing like the sort of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources needed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was nominated for speedy deletion by Anarchyte, on the basis of speedy deletion criteria A7 (no indication of importance) and G11 (promotion). At first, I speedily deleted the article, but on reflection I think that was a mistake: although I agree that there is no indication of significance, it is not about a person, animal, organisation, web content, or an event, and so does not qualify for A7, and although the article seems to be intended to publicise the subject and encourage readers to regard it as useful, it is not so blatantly promotional as to justify a G11 deletion, so I have restored the article and brought it here for discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to what :@JamesBWatson: have said let me provide big picture of the Falcor.JS. The library is non-profit, open-source project. It has 1700 commits (and a lots of lines of code) to it's GH repo: https://github.com/Netflix/falcor/commits/master , the library is in production on the Netflix's main website and the developers from netflix has open-sourced that library last year. From my perspective, I have googled and didn't find any wikipedia entry on that topic so I added one few days ago. The Falcor Netlix is non-commerce open-source library. About myself: I am a javascript developer, this is my github profile -> https://github.com/przeor/ ... I am NOT ASSOCIATED with Netflix and I use the Falcor.js in my project. I think it may be useful covered this topic of open-source library on Wikipedia as I find this library very useful. Przeor1989 (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG - I found these sources to show notability ([14], [15], [16], primary source), but only three of them are secondary. I'm not seeing enough to assert significant coverage (WP:TOOSOON?). For this reason, I don't believe that it meets WP:GNG. If there are others I missed, or if there's enough others that show significant coverage, please let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: On the Too soon page you can read: "A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after - however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." This example says, that the film wasn't been released, PLEASE NOTICE that Falcor is over 2 years old, and the Falcor was released in June 2016 - it doesn't look for me too soon (as on the example on Wikipedia:Too Soon), as more and more people will use this technology in their javascript's projects (like me) Przeor1989 (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Przeor1989 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016 hasn't happened yet :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but humor aside, It's too soon because significant coverage hasn't yet occurred. It doesn't matter how old something is, or when it was released. That's what WP:TOOSOON can also mean. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: ;-P I meant June 2015. Generally speaking, that Library has 5489 stars on GitHub (https://github.com/Netflix/falcor/stargazers) and 3345 followers on Twitter (https://twitter.com/falcorjs) so in my eyes, this is quite popular library in comparison to other existing one. For more stats, the Netflix Falcor library is one of the top most 70 popular libraries on GitHub (it's huge) - source of how many libraries/repos there are on github with over 5400 stars: https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=javascript+language%3AJavaScript+stars%3A%3E5400+language%3AJavaScript&type=Repositories&ref=advsearch&l=JavaScript&l=JavaScript Przeor1989 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My summary shows that this article shall be recovered and saved on the Wiki.

The story, short: 1) my mistake was that I did copyrights mistake which was edited in 30 minutes from releasing initial writing 2) Before I corrected the article, it has been nominated to speedy deletion and deleted by @JamesBWatson: 3) After a discussion on @JamesBWatson: discussion page, he reversed the deletion 4) We are on that topic now for "Articles deletion" because all articles recovered from deletion have to be discussed by wider community

In that deletion's discussion we have proved that: a) The article has the notability (check above) b) The article's topic is mature and NOT too soon (this library is almost 3 years old and also please check that above the Falcor's library is in "100 top most popular" on GitHub - please remember that there are over 100 000 javascript libraries and this Netflix Falcor library is in top one hundred !!!)

Hope it helps.

Regards, Kamil :-) Przeor1989 (talk) Przeor1989 (talk) 09:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged me in your post above, I have come back and read what you have written here since I last posted. You say "we have proved that ... The article has the notability", but I don't see where you have done that. I see only that you have made assertions such as that the subject is a "non-profit, open-source project", that it is"almost 3 years old", that it is "popular", that it has many "followers" on Twitter and so on, none of which has any bearing whatever on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I still see no source that anyone has provided that indicates notability in the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines.

You seem to have misunderstood the essay "Wikipedia:Too soon". The essential point of that essay is that a subject is not notable because it may at some time in the future come to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines if it hasn't done so yet, not that an article becomes notable if it has been around for some time. There are sometimes subjects which only came into existence yesterday, but which have already received enough coverage to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and others which came into existence many years ago, but which have not. "It's been around for nearly three years" is not evidence of notability, nor would "it's been around for twenty years" be. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons stated above. There's really nothing else I can add to this discussion; this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards, especially in the case of notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:53, 9 March 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher John Pickup[edit]

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

Fail WP:SOLDIER. Is the award of the LVO enough to make him notable? Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Possibly not but being Chief of Staff Headquarters Army Air Corps plus LVO and OBE might be if sources could be added. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was also regimental colonel of the Army Air Corps which is a senior position. Combined with the rest, I think that makes him notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, I think having both the LVO and the OBE pushes him past the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the proposer observed, none of LVO, OBE, Regimental colonel or Chief of Staff of a mere Air Corps achieves WP:SOLDIER, nor frankly does the whole combination unless the guy did something notable to get there. "Colonel Christopher Pickup" returned me just 8 hits on Google, most of them to do with promoting his business activities. No, there is nothing to say here that warrants a standalone article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:27, 2 March 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helpdesk and incident reporting auditing[edit]

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

This article reads very much like an opinion or essay. Believe it fails WP:NOTADVICE and WP:ESSAY. I work in this field and this article isn't encylcopedic Gbawden (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it does need references and a rewrite. So does Help desk. The two should be done together, with the former being a main article for a section in the latter. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete In its unsourced state it's just a vague woffle of essay, not an encyclopedic article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Until it has references, that's all this article is. I don't think we should keep it on the off-chance that someone will fix it. ubiquity (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does appear to be a notable topic: [17], [18], [19]. Article can be improved to address WP:ESSAY and WP:NOTADVICE concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not saying that it is of no value, just that this is a HOW-TO guide and not an encyclopaedia topic. Shritwod (talk) 10:17, 29 February 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 Venu Sree Raam. Note that the nominator stated in part in a later comment, "While I would not object to a redirect being left... (et al.). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yevado Okadu[edit]

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

Classic example of why films that have not yet begun production should NOT have their own article. Evidently, the primary actor has walked out, at least temporarily, on compensation issues and production is on an indefinite hiatus. Too early for this article and fails WP:NFILMS. Perhaps if/when production resumes and principle photography is completed, then may be the time to consider starting an article. Clearly now is NOT the time. Safiel (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts per WP:BEFORE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

per WP:INDAFD: "Yevado Okadu" "Venu Sri Ram" "Dil Raju" "Devi Sri Prasad" "Ravi Teja" "Pragya Jaiswal"

Temporary redirect under WP:ATD to writer/director Venu Sri Ram. The topic of his planned film certainly has coverage to meet inclusion criteria,[20] and we can simply undo the redirect when we have confirmation of the start of filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just note that for films, coverage is not the complete prequisite for inclusion. Per WP:NFF:

Quote Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.

Continue comment While I would not object to a redirect being left, ideally, this should never have existed at all. We should be discouraging people from racing to Wikipedia to create an article the instant a new film is announced, not encouraging them to do so. Safiel (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I would be loathe to tell all new and inexperienced editors that they simply cannot contribute articles. I'd point them at applicable guidelines sure, and discuss their contributions if needed, fine. But the way to build is to build. A redirect would have been suitable and we'd have only needed this discussion if it the redirect were then debated. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either move to draft or delete. Too soon for a Wikipedia page now however we can use the information later on if the film releases. Mr RD 08:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 29 February 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Leigh[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT. Looked for more substantial sources and found nothing. Roles in major films are very minor: "President of the Phoenix Fraternity" and "Nervous Intern". He was only a stand-in for 27 Dresses.

Theatrical roles are for local/touring productions of older works with no indication of length or significance supported by sources.

There is an unrelated reporter/photographer named Brett Leigh Dicks, which may be a stumbling block when searching for sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no signs of independent notability for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, Leigh starred and directed independent film "Festival." He appeared in an episode of "The Young and the Restless" in 2013 as "Handsy." In 2014, Leigh played "Abraham Lincoln" in an episode of Nickelodeon's iCarly. He played a major role as the antagonist in the Lifetime movie "The Spirit of Christmas" in 2015. He plays "Jack Lemmon" in the film "Near Myth: The Oskar Knight Story," which has been completed and is set for theatrical release in 2016. Reference: NY Times and Rotten Tomatoes.

I wouldn't classify his role in the "Social Network" as "very minor." He carries most of the lines for several minutes during the scene with Andrew Garfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colson7012 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ENT. Exactly how minor his role in the Social Network was is debatable, but an unnamed role with several minutes of dialog is general not considered significant without substantial sources saying otherwise. The NYT and Rotten Tomatoes sources are databases of performers which don't evaluate the significance of roles. The Spirit of Christmas TV movie isn't clearly notable, and his role's importance would need to be explained by a reliable source. He's credited pretty far from the top, which suggests that it's not all that significant. The Near Myth movie hasn't come out yet, and is not so obviously noteworthy that it bypasses WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing preventing this article from being recreated in the future if it's deleted and better sources come along, but for now I still believe it's WP:TOOSOON. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show he passes WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam kc[edit]

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

There is no reliable source. This page was created by a user with same surname as the page. It was requested for speedy deletion as the page history shows, but another user removed the tag. Captain Spark (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unusable sources, and when I searched for the person I found next to nothing. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 13:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7: Article lacks a credible claim of significance. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:24, 29 February 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. Consensus is that the sources clearly support notability of the subject. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal socialism[edit]

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

Liberal socialism makes no intellectual sense, at all. It's complete bullshit. Anyone with half a brain and a drive to study socialist literature understands this: that socialism is incompatible with liberalism. This article shouldn't exist, it's ridiculous. I propose that this article is to be deleted after we combine useful content with the welfare capitalism and social democracy articles. The liberal socialism article is in direction contradiction to the socialism, capitalism, mixed economy, social democracy, welfare capitalism, and democratic socialism articles. None of these articles support the idea of socialism being compatible with liberalism, or the idea of mixing socialism and capitalism. All of these articles at the moment do accept that socialism can arise from capitalism either through revolution or through gradual change. None of these articles claim that you can have both at the same time. The social democracy and welfare capitalism articles literally describe everything that is in this article, yet this article stands in contradiction. Unless everything else is wrong, it makes no sense to maintain this article. Thank you. SpaceMilk (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This article was nominated with no mention or citation of any Wikipedia deletion or inclusion policies. Clearly a notable and highly referenced article subject that has significant cultural, historical, political, societal, and economical impact. Passes WP:GNG by a mile. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to list an article for AfD. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as above, seems an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on behalf on an individual editor. The article is relatively well-referenced, and explains the ideology in relation to similar ideas (social democracy, social liberalism, etc) so has genuine merit.--Autospark (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more serious analysis of issues the nom obviously has no idea about our deletion guidelines. The artilce clearly has multiple serious sources. And the term has lots of google hits. HOwever the nom may have a point. Therefore the voters here must not jump to obvious conclusions and look at the sources to check whether the article is original research, a WP:SYNTH from various sources. üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems pretty clear that the author has a personal vendetta against this article, but they fail to give any reason why the content/sources of the article are incorrect. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Distinct ideology, different from "socialism" per se—let alone "social liberalism". Well crafted and sourced article. --Checco (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced. AfD isn't a venue to debate politics. WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems relevant as others have stated. CambodianSandwich (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In reply to @Altenmann: I've read through the article and checked some of the citations and there doesn't appear to be any obvious WP:SYNTH going on; the article seems to me a relatively straightforward statement of historical facts. I'm mildly concerned that the article is presenting several discrete historical movements with the same name as one thing, but that's something that can be hashed out by editors of the article, not a matter for AfD. Otherwise I don't see any radical problems with the article, and the nom certainly doesn't give any good reason to delete it. —Nizolan ^(talk) 00:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of this topic is substantiated by the sources cited in this article; any disputes about content can be worked out on its talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Rumbaugh[edit]

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

I have been unable to find references to show that this artist meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The award he won is for local volunteer work. Unless an editor more familiar with sports art can find independent published material about this subject, the article should deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable artist. The sources only mention his art casually and focus on his fundraising instead. Mduvekot (talk) 12:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet by WP standards but can be in the future. Good luck with the art career! gidonb (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there are no any solo/group exhibition or any substantial coverage of his art itself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:12, 7 March 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.