< 14 July 16 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 procedural close.. This is full of errors. The correct nomination appears to be located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhiljhile City. North America1000 21:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jhiljhile[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    ((Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:Jhiljhle))))
[[:((subst:Jhiljhle))]] ([[Special:EditPage/((subst:Jhiljhle))|edit]] | [[Talk:((subst:Jhiljhle))|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/((subst:Jhiljhle))|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/((subst:Jhiljhle))|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/((subst:Jhiljhle))|delete]] | [((fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/((subst:Jhiljhle))|limit=999)) links] | [((fullurl:((subst:Jhiljhle))|action=watch)) watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Tiger Gang Talk 12:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalex[edit]

Jalex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - While I suspect the creator of this article is one of the two people mentioned as creating this it is not directly stated so a11 wouldn't apply. I can find nothing to verify anything in this article and the two sources supplied do not verify anything about jalex. There is no claim to significance in the article. -- GB fan 23:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tair Kaminer[edit]

Tair Kaminer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic case of there simply being nothing else aside from that one event, the PROD was simply removed with the apparent basis that extra sources would help but it's nowhere close to convincing. Notifying Deborahjay who also commented at the talk page. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-woman-19-becomes-longest-jailed-military-objector/
  2. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/14/israeli-military-to-release-female-refusenik-from-jail.html
  3. http://forward.com/opinion/344413/meet-tair-kaminer-the-19-year-old-conscientious-objector-who-just-made-isra/
  4. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.730895
  5. http://972mag.com/israeli-jurists-to-idf-release-conscientious-objector-tair-kaminer/120421/
  6. http://972mag.com/idf-releases-longest-serving-female-conscientious-objector/120616/
  7. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/IDF-denies-Kaminer-conscientious-objector-status-460131
  8. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.730026
  9. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.726062
  10. http://972mag.com/photos-protest-for-conscientious-objector-outside-idf-prison/116256/
  11. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.713944
  12. http://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/israel-une-lyceenne-prefere-la-prison-au-service-militaire-3997561
I also saw sources in German, Italian, Spanish and Turkish, but others are probably better qualified to assess those than I.
Perhaps the best solution is simply to change the name of the entry to something like Tair Kaminsky Conscientious Objection or something else to indicate the focus on the event rather than a true biography. In any case I don't think Wikipedia is served by deleting. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 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. Hoax Jac16888 Talk 10:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akinmoladun Ayodeji[edit]

Akinmoladun Ayodeji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uruvi[edit]

Uruvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Thikthik15 (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC) This article is full with wrong information there are no character in Mahabharata as Uruvi.She is completely a fictional character.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:44, 21 July 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 back to the main article. Specifically, I find consensus below for a small sample of the comments to be included in the main article as examples, with all of them being added to Wikiquote (if they are not already there). Those arguing for the retention of the quotes did so largely due to their being potentially useful as a historic record, but did not address how they have encyclopaedic notability beyond there being other examples of lengthy lists of quotes on Wikipedia (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). The prose elements of this article should be merged back into the main article's aftermath section (something explicitly or implicitly recommended by most "delete" voters as well). There is nothing in this AfD that would preclude a separate, prose-based Aftermath of the 2016 Nice attack article if the main article needs to be split on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack[edit]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. Bloated and unmanageable WP:COATRACK collection of predictable and non-noteworthy responses, created less than 10 hours after the main article was created. These "Reactions to [tragedy du jour]" articles have got to stop, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the "Keep" arguments in the other AfD discussions and say how they don't apply to this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first the article has WP:POTENTIAL as I have shown below, a rename should be in order. Aside from that there is WP:GNG which these quotes would pass. Given that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP this article should be expanded, and improved from its current state just as the others have. (Example: Before [3], and After [4]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential to store more quotes. So does my scrapbook. Which at this rate will soon be getting its own article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there are only so many countries out there, it has potential to have things added in prose which editors already have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering if a WP:PRECEDENT is by now established. Yes every article is different but the same arguments are being used over and over when it comes to these types of articles. Can the article be expanded? Yes, retitle it to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack, there are bound to be for example new terrorism protocols put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for". What? Since when does Wikipedia cater to anyone or anything? And since when is "condemnation of terrorism" anything new, unusual, or noteworthy? Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The international community was unanimous in its condemnation to the attack, and expressed sympathy for the victims". Fewer than 20 words, and not too difficult to find a decent source for. Hardly justifies a stand-alone article.

    If you had significant numbers of world leaders saying "he should have gone faster" or "it was six of one and half a dozen of the other", then yes, a stand-alone article would be perfectly understandable. But for straightforward if high-profile situations like this, Wikiquote is the place to go if the quotations are as important as is argued. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree that the mass of quotes is of little encyclopedic value, and am tentatively persuaded that notable reactions and aftermath will fit in the main article. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your introspection and humility, Four. I'm just an IP, but it appears to me that it's just the platitudenous reaction to the tragedy du jour. Thoughts and prayers. Outrage. Blah blah blah. But I'm just an IP and will remain so, so I don't have a vote. (But I have a voice.) 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How does this belong on Wikipedia rather than Wikiquote? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it shouldn't be in both places, there are more than just quotes present in the article which can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a terrorist attack has achieved global attention is notable, and deserves a prominent mention in the attack's article. Whether the content of that reaction warrants a stand-alone article depends on the diversity of the comments. Can any of the comments on this page be summarised as anything other than "this is terrible. Our deepest sympathies to the victims and their families."? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "encyclopedia" by whose standards are you going by? By Wikipedia's standards. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I created it because User:InedibleHulk had done so, User:Mardus objected, and I (not being aware of this longstanding debate) thought such subpages were a more or less standard solution. FourViolas (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many similar articles made over the years should also be reexamined and dealt with. First off, for the first two "examples" listed above that I guess are somehow supposed to show widespread consensus are misleading. The first Norway nomination has several "delete" and "merges" and the second one shouldn't have been labeled a "Snow Keep" since there were valid deleted opinions. The Orlando nomination closed as no consensus. There does not seem to be any sort of precedent or widespread consensus to keep these type of articles at this time. ZN3ukct (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains why the history should be retained should consensus be to keep or merge - that's a condition of the CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution licence and therefore mandatory for all content on this site. It does not explain why we should keep or merge the article in the first place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Of course this is a deletion dispute. Many people believe this article should not exist, and have given extensive policy-based reasons why not. You recognize that yourself by your acknowledgement that it could or should be merged. If you want to !vote "Merge" then do so. For more information on how AfD works and what the possible outcomes or !votes can be, see WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nannadeem's so-called rationale was pretty much gibberish and didn't make much sense, at least not to me. Lugnuts, since you are native speaker of English, can you clarify your precise rationale? Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to negating my observation, please read the Definitions of terrorism. Nannadeem (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: the platitudes should be cut to what secondary sources say, something like Wow, literally everyone from the King of the Netherlands to Hezbollah issued statements condemning the attack and expressing sympathy, with none opposed or abstaining. Details on notable and non-routine responses, such as ISIS's shifty claims, public debate over video surveillance and the state of emergency, saber-rattling and analysis, etc., can be treated as concise prose. FourViolas (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can obviously fit easily into 2016 Nice attacks, and should go there instead. If it were kept, this coatracky article, even if trimmed, would always still be a nightmare babysitting job because people will keep adding to it no matter how many times it is trimmed. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peru is still sitting this one out. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Terrorists. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I hear. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or they're waiting to swoop in and save the day at the last minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Turns out they're good guys. Phew! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
As stated before, these articles still "only" contain about 50 random countries. So those in favour of these articles have a job to do lest it be seen as there's almost 150 possibly terror-supporting countries in the world. User2534 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I even gave a difference on that above, people are so focused on the quotes though that they don't see anything else. I will repost here so editors can see the example: (Before [5], and After [6]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly would it be "very bloated and long otherwise"? Please enlighten me. Parsley Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well take a look at Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, someone tried in vain to copy all of the info in the article over to November 2015 Paris attacks and as a result the latter page is over half filled with the "aftermath" section bloating the article beyond 130kb. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and many others misunderstand the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia umbrella. No one is suggesting that there is zero value in collating reactions to historic events. Plenty are suggesting that a collection of quotes belongs on a Wikimedia site dedicated to the collection of quotes; a representative sample of which should be used within the main article to give the reader a representative sample of what has been said and the opportunity to visit the Wikiquote page if so inclined. Of historical significance? Debateably. Of encyclopaedic merit? Unambiguously not. A closing admin – regardless of the final action they take or recommend when evaluating consensus, would need to take this into account in their closing rationale. Thus it would help your cause to explain why I'm wrong. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwxrwxrwx: We do have WP:REACTIONS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sarcastic, but seriously not a bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep WP:CIVIL in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that, it says: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles." You are taking the policy and interpreting it. As for WP:NOTNEWS this cant be considered routine coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Piro[edit]

Steven Piro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. He exists and runs a company. Is married, has children and has suffered loss. None of this equates to notability and none of the references give any inkling of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:27, 15 July 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  07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Jay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sara Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G4 speedy deletion contested by The Anome for Recreating from machine translation of pt:Sara Jay, per Wikipedia licensing. I believe this needs revisiting, since the article's deletion in 2011, which is now 5 years ago. I can't see any reason why this does not now pass WP:PORNBIO, particularly with the Hall of Fame award -- this article exists on multiple other Wikipedias, and clearly meets their WP:PORNBIO criteria., thus sending it here. I am sort of expecting another deletion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain how it meets PORNBIO & GNG without copying the above ? .... –Davey2010Talk 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor always votes keep in porn-related deletion debates. Such assertions without evidence are usually discounted. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear delectionists i.e. Davey2010, Gene93k etc Sara Jay won: Urban X Award - Best Interracial Star and Urban X Award - Hall of Fame, so - meets requirements of WP:PORNBIO and also there are interpendent (non-porn) sources, in article - for example: Limite Magazine, so - meets requirements of WP:GNG Moreover, arguments by User:The Anome. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     15:05, 17 July 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 back to the main article. Specifically, I find consensus below for a small sample of the comments to be included in the main article as examples, with all of them being added to Wikiquote (if they are not already there). Those arguing for the retention of the quotes did so largely due to their being potentially useful as a historic record, but did not address how they have encyclopaedic notability beyond there being other examples of lengthy lists of quotes on Wikipedia (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). The prose elements of this article should be merged back into the main article's aftermath section (something explicitly or implicitly recommended by most "delete" voters as well). There is nothing in this AfD that would preclude a separate, prose-based Aftermath of the 2016 Nice attack article if the main article needs to be split on size grounds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack[edit]

Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS. Bloated and unmanageable WP:COATRACK collection of predictable and non-noteworthy responses, created less than 10 hours after the main article was created. These "Reactions to [tragedy du jour]" articles have got to stop, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the "Keep" arguments in the other AfD discussions and say how they don't apply to this one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first the article has WP:POTENTIAL as I have shown below, a rename should be in order. Aside from that there is WP:GNG which these quotes would pass. Given that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP this article should be expanded, and improved from its current state just as the others have. (Example: Before [13], and After [14]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential to store more quotes. So does my scrapbook. Which at this rate will soon be getting its own article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there are only so many countries out there, it has potential to have things added in prose which editors already have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering if a WP:PRECEDENT is by now established. Yes every article is different but the same arguments are being used over and over when it comes to these types of articles. Can the article be expanded? Yes, retitle it to Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack, there are bound to be for example new terrorism protocols put into place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"so the voice of different countries to a platform by their reaction must be catered for". What? Since when does Wikipedia cater to anyone or anything? And since when is "condemnation of terrorism" anything new, unusual, or noteworthy? Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The international community was unanimous in its condemnation to the attack, and expressed sympathy for the victims". Fewer than 20 words, and not too difficult to find a decent source for. Hardly justifies a stand-alone article.

    If you had significant numbers of world leaders saying "he should have gone faster" or "it was six of one and half a dozen of the other", then yes, a stand-alone article would be perfectly understandable. But for straightforward if high-profile situations like this, Wikiquote is the place to go if the quotations are as important as is argued. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree that the mass of quotes is of little encyclopedic value, and am tentatively persuaded that notable reactions and aftermath will fit in the main article. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your introspection and humility, Four. I'm just an IP, but it appears to me that it's just the platitudenous reaction to the tragedy du jour. Thoughts and prayers. Outrage. Blah blah blah. But I'm just an IP and will remain so, so I don't have a vote. (But I have a voice.) 71.184.228.118 (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? How does this belong on Wikipedia rather than Wikiquote? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it shouldn't be in both places, there are more than just quotes present in the article which can be expanded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that a terrorist attack has achieved global attention is notable, and deserves a prominent mention in the attack's article. Whether the content of that reaction warrants a stand-alone article depends on the diversity of the comments. Can any of the comments on this page be summarised as anything other than "this is terrible. Our deepest sympathies to the victims and their families."? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "encyclopedia" by whose standards are you going by? By Wikipedia's standards. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually I created it because User:InedibleHulk had done so, User:Mardus objected, and I (not being aware of this longstanding debate) thought such subpages were a more or less standard solution. FourViolas (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many similar articles made over the years should also be reexamined and dealt with. First off, for the first two "examples" listed above that I guess are somehow supposed to show widespread consensus are misleading. The first Norway nomination has several "delete" and "merges" and the second one shouldn't have been labeled a "Snow Keep" since there were valid deleted opinions. The Orlando nomination closed as no consensus. There does not seem to be any sort of precedent or widespread consensus to keep these type of articles at this time. ZN3ukct (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That explains why the history should be retained should consensus be to keep or merge - that's a condition of the CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution licence and therefore mandatory for all content on this site. It does not explain why we should keep or merge the article in the first place. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Of course this is a deletion dispute. Many people believe this article should not exist, and have given extensive policy-based reasons why not. You recognize that yourself by your acknowledgement that it could or should be merged. If you want to !vote "Merge" then do so. For more information on how AfD works and what the possible outcomes or !votes can be, see WP:DISCUSSAFD. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nannadeem's so-called rationale was pretty much gibberish and didn't make much sense, at least not to me. Lugnuts, since you are native speaker of English, can you clarify your precise rationale? Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to negating my observation, please read the Definitions of terrorism. Nannadeem (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: the platitudes should be cut to what secondary sources say, something like Wow, literally everyone from the King of the Netherlands to Hezbollah issued statements condemning the attack and expressing sympathy, with none opposed or abstaining. Details on notable and non-routine responses, such as ISIS's shifty claims, public debate over video surveillance and the state of emergency, saber-rattling and analysis, etc., can be treated as concise prose. FourViolas (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can obviously fit easily into 2016 Nice attacks, and should go there instead. If it were kept, this coatracky article, even if trimmed, would always still be a nightmare babysitting job because people will keep adding to it no matter how many times it is trimmed. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peru is still sitting this one out. Just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Terrorists. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I hear. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or they're waiting to swoop in and save the day at the last minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Turns out they're good guys. Phew! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [reply]
As stated before, these articles still "only" contain about 50 random countries. So those in favour of these articles have a job to do lest it be seen as there's almost 150 possibly terror-supporting countries in the world. User2534 (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I even gave a difference on that above, people are so focused on the quotes though that they don't see anything else. I will repost here so editors can see the example: (Before [15], and After [16]) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly would it be "very bloated and long otherwise"? Please enlighten me. Parsley Man (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well take a look at Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks, someone tried in vain to copy all of the info in the article over to November 2015 Paris attacks and as a result the latter page is over half filled with the "aftermath" section bloating the article beyond 130kb. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you and many others misunderstand the difference between Wikipedia and the Wikimedia umbrella. No one is suggesting that there is zero value in collating reactions to historic events. Plenty are suggesting that a collection of quotes belongs on a Wikimedia site dedicated to the collection of quotes; a representative sample of which should be used within the main article to give the reader a representative sample of what has been said and the opportunity to visit the Wikiquote page if so inclined. Of historical significance? Debateably. Of encyclopaedic merit? Unambiguously not. A closing admin – regardless of the final action they take or recommend when evaluating consensus, would need to take this into account in their closing rationale. Thus it would help your cause to explain why I'm wrong. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwxrwxrwx: We do have WP:REACTIONS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sarcastic, but seriously not a bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep WP:CIVIL in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that, it says: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of the articles." You are taking the policy and interpreting it. As for WP:NOTNEWS this cant be considered routine coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:13, 21 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Reynolds[edit]

Sage Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability; a dead link is the only source, although the article contains an external link to the subject's web site.

An IP editor continues to add material unsourced (edit summary suggests he got info from the subject himself, suggesting a WP:COI). An earlier PROD was removed by that IP editor.

Note: an earlier claim of an award has been deleted, as not supported, and indeed contradicted, by its reference; the reference only said he'd entered the competition; it also looked like a draft announcement, with highlights of proposed edits, so it was not a reliable source in any event. TJRC (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:33, 15 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resume Games (retailer)[edit]

Resume Games (retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly started company still gaining establishment and there's nothing to suggest the substantial independent notability, sources are noticeably consisting of their own and the ones that are not, are not fully convincing; my own searches have also found nothing better than one of the listed local news articles. There's also no inherited notability from a partnership with Nexway. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 12:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Coffee Roasters[edit]

Heart Coffee Roasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely promotional. Local popularity is not the same as notability, and "among the top 20 coffee shops in Portland" is a pretty faint claim of significance. ubiquity (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 12:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Nobel laureates[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Christian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems... a dubious subject for a list. It's an intersection, combining two subjects, and appears to be using quite a deal of synthesis to make it up, evaluating each of them. That would be fine if the subject were notable, but it really doesn't seem to be, with the only source previously covering it being a single book of trivia and other information about the Nobel Prizes. This does not rise to notability - we require references in multiple reliable sources, after all. I just don't see this article being defensible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this list is not an original research since been several studies or infortmation about the religions of Nobel prize laureates as the book 100 Years of Nobel Prizes by Baruch A. Shalev, and cientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman, and Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, and Comparative Religion For Dummie by William P. Lazarus and Mark Sullivan, and The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige by Burton Feldman and others.--Jobas (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, It would be exceedingly inconsistent to keep the the 3 faith-related lists mentioned above by User:Jobas and the many other articles along the lines of List of Buddhists "This list includes... people notable in other areas who are publicly Buddhist or who have espoused Buddhism." while deleting this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't see the Christianity and Science argument as at all a good keep argument - the prize list is not limited to science - Literature and Peace Prizes, for instance - and it kind of makes it sound like the list is pushing an agenda, since the percentage of Christians in the Nobel Prize lists is not particularly evidentiary to that argument - and the list itself doesn't have the bias that's being added to it in order to make a notability argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's useful to withdraw. It'll help the page more if it can point to a firm keep instead of a mere no consensus. I'm not sure I agree with the logic put forwards - it still feels like an intersection of two topics, which would be better handled, if encyclopedic, as part of a "List of Nobel Laureates by religious affiliation" or the like, but I do intend to accept the result, whatever happens. I don't think it's likely to be deleted at this point, but I still think it's a useful debate to have, particularly as I'm not sure we've gotten that good of sources out yet. It feels a little like taking trivia, mentioned briefly in books covering more broad topics - Christianity and Science; statistics about the Nobel Prize; etc, etc - and making it a unit in its own right, and that still feels wrong to me.
It does feel like some voters - particularly E.M.Gregory and "per E.M.Gregory" votes - are somewhat explicitly using this to make an argument about Christianity and Science that's not at all supported by the facts (the list includes LITERATURE and PEACE prizes, after all - it's not about the topic it's being claimed to be about, and those are likely to have at least some Western bias when being awarded by a European Foundation, particularly in the early years, and even the science prizes aren't going to have been perfectly awarded. But the list itself doesn't try to make any dodgy analyses, they're being made as part of poor keep arguments, and are a reason to ignore those keeps, not to ignore the other keep arguments. (Mind, I'm going on the argument as written; it may be there's a better argument hiding under it) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth considering a merge after this AfD is decided. The biggest drawback about the current organization is that any Nobelists with relatively obscure faiths are left out because separate articles cannot be justified for those faiths. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rrgarding Hindu/Buddhist lists, give it a few years, there are top scientists/economists/physicians from those backgrounds on Noble probable lists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: And that's fair enough, just they are included in the statistics, so it weakens the original argument a fair bit. I don't feel horribly strongly about this list - it seems odd and trivial to me more than harmful, so I'm not going to make a fuss over it being kept, if it is, and I don't imagine it isn't going to be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 20 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Drive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Enterprise Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a road in a suburban city, which makes no substantive claim of notability under our inclusion criteria for roads -- and even more importantly, cites no reliable source coverage for anything in the article. A prior version was deleted in 2008 -- while this is different enough in form to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, it isn't different enough in claimed or sourced notability to not still be a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 12:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danialle Karmanos[edit]

Danialle Karmanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all suggesting any convincing independent notability and searches have found nothing substantially better. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 17:49, 15 July 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. WP:SNOW, obv A7 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McKnight[edit]

Steve McKnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable autobiography. noq (talk) 17:11, 15 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Roesler[edit]

Mark Roesler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time to put a stop to this. While the tone here is not overly promotional, it is part of an effort by Electric7304 to put this guy and his company, CMG Worldwide, on the map. This has been deleted before, most recently by DGG--a version maybe just different enough for me not to pull the trigger right now and just delete it per WP:G4. Note that other edits made by the creator all embellish this company's reputation and I will warn them.

In the meantime, though, we're dealing with this article, which has no decent sourcing whatsoever. There's a number of hits in Google News, and all of them confirm that Roesler is indeed "Chairman and CEO of CMG worldwide", but I see no in-depth coverage that proves he's notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:39, 15 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Haines III[edit]

Reuben Haines III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm torn bringing this to AfD, but alas I must. The subject has claims of notability, however after searching through references, the most I can find are information referring Haines to Wyck House, which has more of the notability. The best I found was that he had the first hot-air central heating system installed at Wyck House.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I just don't see enough notability on his own for verification. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • [17],
  • [18],
  • [19],
  • [20]. However, I am unable to discern this family's importance - and in particular I am unable to discern the importance of this particular individual. The creator of this article will have to do the leg work - and I have provided some sources for exploration - but I am unable to determine notability of Reuben Haines III. I also reccomend trying some relevant JSTOR searches Steve Quinn (talk) 17:02, 15 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant - word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article Vjmlhds 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, "word for word copy of the bulk of the Cleveland Cavaliers article" is normal procedure for "daughter" articles like this (and was explained in the last nomination and in the talk page for the Cavs article), though it's not accurate, since it all came from the History section. That was your main reasoning for the last nomination, which ended up being a strong keep. Nothing has changed in that regard in the two months since the last nomination. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 02:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology and animation[edit]

Archaeology and animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTESSAY. Essentially a collection personal critiques of depictions of archaeology in popular media by the primary author. I don't think it's salvageable: in theory, something like this could exist as a subarticle of Archaeology#Popular views of archaeology, but the current content is subjective, specific to particular works, and almost entirely without references. Joe Roe (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 15 July 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. Although there is a merge !vote, the keep !votes based on policies outweigh it. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly algorithm[edit]

Firefly algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is part of the following group of articles that I have all nomination for deletion (individually):

These article all detail research done by Xin-She Yang. All suffer from the following problems:

5940 papers
The Firefly algorithm is discussed in many chapters of the edited book Adaptation and Hybridization in Computational Intelligence [21]. Although the first chapter is indeed written by Yang, the other chapters are not. You can see the list of chapters and authors from Amazon's "Look Inside".[22] Also, on Google Scholar there are 5,940 search results for "firefly algorithm", of which only a dozen or two are authored by Yang. [23] I recommend the Refimprove template be added rather than the article be deleted. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I noted a superficial look makes this look quantitatively well-cited, but superficial looks can be deceptive. From all those references could you pick out those which you believe have been published in the qualitatively best venues? Did you find any truly respected textbook or overview article discussing this? —Ruud 20:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google Books for "firefly intitle:optimization" [24] turns up 511 books from various well-known publishers, including:
* Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms By Dan Simon, Wiley, [25]
* Computational Intelligence Paradigms for Optimization Problems Using MATLAB®/SIMULINK® by S. Sumathi, L. Ashok Kumar, Surekha. P, CRC Press [26]
* Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization, edited by Wang, John, IGI Global [27]
Michaelmalak (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evolutionary Optimization Algorithms looks like a decent enough source. Are there one or two more like that? (The other two you suggested above are already seem to be of more dubious quality. I couldn't find out anything about the authors of the CRC Press one. There is another similarly titled book, though. Neither appear to have received any citations. Somewhat similar story about the IGI Global one, which isn't a top-tier publisher to begin with.) —Ruud 09:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weyland, Glover, Sörensen

Weyland, who has previously criticized another "nature-inspired" metaheuristic (harmony search), also explicitly calls out the firefly algorithm as being of unclear novelty in the introduction of his new article (Elsevier ScienceDirect link). —Ruud 09:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years a huge number of novel metaheuristics were proposed. These metaheuristics are usually based on metaphors describing natural processes or social phenomena. The metaphors used to derive the working mechanisms of such novel metaheuris- tics are getting increasingly absurd and the connection between the metaphors on the one hand and optimization on the other hand is getting increasingly vague. It is not really clear what the flow of water [1], the leaps of frogs [2] or a salmon run [3] have to do with optimization. Additionally, it seems that the underlying working mechanisms of these methods are very similar, and in some cases even identical, to those of well-established heuristics. For example, the differences between the particle swarm optimization meta- heuristic [4] and ‘‘novel’’ metaheuristics like the firefly algorithm [5], the fruit fly optimization algorithm [6], the fish swarm opti- mization algorithm [7] or the cat swarm optimization algorithm [8] seem negligible. Nevertheless, the literature is full of results which certify exceptional performance to these ‘‘novel’’ methods. Obviously, there is something going wrong. This whole develop- ment had been ignored for quite a while, but recently open crit- icism has emerged.

Glover and Sörensen also comment on the problem we are seeing here in their Scholarpedia article under the section "The metaphor controversy":

A large (and increasing) number of publications focuses on the development of (supposedly) new metaheuristic frameworks based on metaphors. The list of natural or man-made processes that has been used as the basis for a metaheuristic framework now includes such diverse processes as bacterial foraging, river formation, biogeography, musicians playing together, electromagnetism, gravity, colonization by an empire, mine blasts, league championships, clouds, and so forth. An important subcategory is found in metaheuristics based on animal behavior. Ants, bees, bats, wolves, cats, fireflies, eagles, vultures, dolphins, frogs, salmon, vultures, termites, flies, and many others, have all been used to inspire a "novel" metaheuristic. A more complete list can be found in Fister et al (2013). As a general rule, publication of papers on metaphor-based metaheuristics has been limited to second-tier journals and conferences, but some recent exceptions to this rule can be found. Sörensen (2013) states that research in this direction is fundamentally flawed. Most importantly, the author contends that the novelty of the underlying metaphor does not automatically render the resulting framework "novel".

Given the big controversy and huge number of book and paper citations, I would think it makes it all the more important to keep in Wikipedia, and add in the criticism (with cites) -- including in the lead. Michaelmalak (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016-07-17 Vast Improvement in Article

Thank you Ruud for your editing work on this article: adding the criticism and deleting the fluff. And thank you for leaving in the actual pseudocode as that answers the question pertinent to Wikipedia readers: "What is the Firefly Algorithm"? Michaelmalak (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nature-Inspired

A direct quote from Xin-She Yang himself from his book Nature-Inspired Metaheuristics which has been repeatedly published by Elsevier.

Researchers have drawn various inspirations to develop a diverse range of algorithms with different degrees of success. Such diversity and success do not mean that we should focus on developing more algorithms for the sake of algorithm developments, or even worse, for the sake of publication. We do not encourage readers to develop new algorithms such as grass, tree, tiger, penguin, snow, sky, ocean, or Hobbit algorithms. These new algorithms may only provide distractions from the solution of really challenging and truly important problems in optimization. New algorithms may be developed only if they provide truly novel ideas and really efficient techniques to solve challenging problems that are not solved by existing algorithms and methods.

Sadly, the scientific community rewards those algorithms that are able to produce better results on a set of benchmark functions Test functions for optimization . Coincidentally, these "inspired algorithms" have been performing well in solving such test cases along with other complex problems, hence the high number of citations. Although, these algorithms may appear to be "metaphoric", most of the original algorithms in this field share at some level, the same level of similarity in terms of "population", "fitness", "operators", "solutions" etc. Hence, singling out "inspired" algorithms for deletion based on a few handful of publications outlining its negative "novelty" against the large number of publications outlining its "effectiveness" is still a matter up for debate. It is true that research at this point of time is mired at the metaheuristic level but till the time the scientific community decides over the debate of "fittest" vs "novelty" , as an knowledge sharing site, both the pros and cons should be weighed infront of the reader, meaning both the applications that have been conspicuously blanked for some algorithms due for deletion and the criticism like the one already been put for firefly should together be put up as information. Furthermore, to clarify some of the claims but these "algorithms" have been published not only in 2nd tier journals or conferences but reputed journals like Elsevier , Springer Publishing , Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, wiley etc. Capn Swing (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the number of metaheuristic algorithm articles needs to be reduced, but I believe Firefly and Artificial Bee Colony are notable enough for articles of their own. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:27, 25 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Tigers[edit]

Save Our Tigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non notable organization and no claim of notability. Article on primary source. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 22 July 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. Snowballs don't last long in Florida in the summer, either. Even though the creator had blanked the page/requested deletion, it's pretty clear that this was going to be an outright delete, so it's being deleted as such, rather than a G7 speedy. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Libertarian Party of Florida[edit]

Friends of the Libertarian Party of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the Libertarian Party of Florida is arguably a notable political organization, I question whether this "friends of" organization meets the policies and guidelines for organizations Shirt58 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jhiljhile City[edit]

Red X I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepali keto62 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 18 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Jhiljhile City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsource,article created by blocked user,citiation isn't available in google Tiger Gang Talk 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know why you're so desperate to remove this article from deletion discussion. You can edit the article freely and if you want to save the article, then please add sources. You cannot remove this article from article for deletion discussion, it can only be closed by an admin depending on the consensus formed through this discussion. Ayub407talk 08:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stopping you from editing the article while this discussion is taking place, Nepali keto62. In fact, improving the sourcing of the article is the best way to demonstrate that it should be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 19 July 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) — Music1201 talk 00:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015[edit]

Myanmar constitutional referendum, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As this referendum did not happen, there is no need for an article on it (as effectively the topic now fails WP:NOTNEWS). I am the article's creator, but could not do a speedy under G7 as it has been edited by several other users. See a similar AfD from a couple of years ago. Number 57 11:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 15 July 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 MontaVista#Meld. If Kvng wants to Merge I have no objections however consensus here is to redirect so closing as such. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meld embedded Linux community[edit]

Meld embedded Linux community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN web community. Typical launch-time coverage, but nothing else. One of the issues in finding coverage is that there's also a Meld software package for Linux that is entirely unrelated to this. Tellingly, the EL to the website is on archive.org, and it no longer exists live. MSJapan (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:57, 15 July 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. After three relists, , and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Laserfiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious spam is obvious. Lord alone knows how, but this has previously survived an AFD so I can't speedy-delete it.  ‑ Iridescent 10:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America1000 11:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 15 July 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. Sources have been provided, and those advocating deletion haven't responded to them. (non-admin closure) ansh666 01:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Childre[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lew Childre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An AfD a couple of months ago was closed as no consensus. The sources provided in that AfD were never added to the article, but the discussion and the sources can be seen here. As an aside, I don't think that AfD was an appropriate candidate for a non-admin closure, but it's a little late to complain about that now.

I agree with the deletion rationale, namely a lack of notability, and a failure to meet WP:ANYBIO. The argument was raised that the person meets #3 in WP:NAUTHOR, but I disagree with this. NAUTHOR specifies: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Boldface added by me.) Are Childre's (mainly) self-published books "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? The relevant books appear to be The HeartMath Solution, Transforming Stress and Freeze Frame - the LibraryThing link in the previous AfD lists lots of titles but it lists translations and alternative titles as separate works. Now, the titles mentioned, as well as the ones that are not, are books that are basically adverts for the Heartmath institute (which is not notable per this AfD), as well as fringe science, and so the burden of proof of notability is pretty high, in my opinion. Publishers Weekly is still an acceptable source for book reviews but one such review (which, in my eyes, is a poorly written one, without any attempt at going beyond what the author says about his own book) for one of his books does not mean that the person meets WP:NAUTHOR. bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last AfD closed 1 month 19 days ago. Nothing has changed with the article. Now a pernicious AfD.
  • This is the third afd, not second. The first one closed keep. This was documented on the article talk page, not sure why the nom neglected to link the Keep AfD.
Doc Childre is the WP:AUTHOR of many books[28] that have received book reviews in reliable sources, per WP:AUTHOR #3 "The person has created .. a well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
Other Sources: NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:
  • Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
  • Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
  • Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).
In addition as noted by User:Arxiloxos in the last AfD (quote):
  • In addition to his written work, note this 1992 Los Angeles Times article reporting that his Heart Zones stress-reduction tape "recently landed on the top 25 'Adult Alternative' list in Billboard magazine six weeks after its release. This is believed to be the first "therapeutic" tape to make the chart." And a March 20, 1993 page from Billboard shows that this album had been on the New Age chart for 49 weeks.
The noms rationale ignored all of the above reliable sources, other than Publishers Weekly. This is the same tactic used in the previous AfD completely ignoring the peer reviewed academic journals, mainstream newspapers like LA Times, etc.. I understand this is not popular article, presumably due to its connection with fringe science, but the sources are really quite solid, this is a textbook case of a unpopular topic meeting the notability guidelines and ceaseless attempts to get it deleted. -- GreenC 14:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Pernicious"? No, it is possible to have different opinions without any malice being involved at all, and it would be appreciated if this discussion could take place without any name-calling or assumptions of bad faith. I have not been involved in any previous deletion discussions, so there are no ceaseless attempts here - it is perhaps telling that two experiencd editors have independently judged that it merits a deletion discussion, however. As I observed above, in my view the previous AfD was inappropriately closed by a non-admin - non-admin closures should be avoided unless the result is crystal clear, and in any case the close was not a "keep" but a "no consensus", so a new attempt to get consensus cannot possibly be a bad thing. The observation that nothing has happened with the article is correct: in my opinion, it shows no more notability today than it did a month ago. I apologise for being sloppy in checking the AfDs. The previous one did not mention a prior AfD, and Twinkle (which I used to create this AfD) also did not notice it. The burden was on me to make sure, of course. Thank you for pointing it out. Finally, when partially quoting a guideline or policy it is easy to cause inadvertent misinterpretations, so looking at the whole guideline in context is important; I included the relevant one in the nom above. --bonadea contributions talk 22:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • editors are under no obligation to add citations to an article that have been discussed at afd, if a subject is notable its notable, articles don't need to show this - WP:CONTN, anyway, sources were added in October 2013 - [29], but were then deleted in November 2013 (with a rather unhelpful edit summary, may have been more appropriate to move them to the talkpage instead) - [30]. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank not dedicated reviews. This is the "well known" portion of the guideline. People are free to disagree but if 34 references are not enough than nothing will be, and no rationale has been put forward to ignore all these sources (including the reviews) in determining the well known status of his body of work. -- GreenC 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources listed earlier in this AfD are freely available online through many public library accounts, or they can be requested from other Wikipedians through WP:REX. It is not a good reason to ignore those sources (most quite old from the 20th century) just because they are unavailable in a Google search ca. 2016. -- GreenC 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for brevity. I have access to powerful search engines. On a Proquest news search of "Lew Childre" the top two hits are th efisherman, # 3 is a local radio announcer, and the fourth hit is our boy. First sentence of article, "His Dad was old Doc Lew Childre Sr., the Grand Ole Opry star whose major contribution to music was a little ditty called Let's Go Fishing." (Wisdom through heartfelt music: [CITY Edition] Evertz, Mary. St. Petersburg Times [St. Petersburg, Fla] 20 Sep 1992: 1F. [32].) Dunno, I may have been wrong since this is a full profile that was picked up by a wire service and ran in 2 big city dailies. I have not disintangled who the father was. but the fishing guy was a big deal, lots more in-depth coverage than this guy has. We do have a WP:RECENTISM problem. The notable fisherman who founded a significant fishing tackle company should have an article. And this boy's daddy, Doc Lew Childre, Sr. probably merits one as well (I'm no authority on mid-century country music.) Frankly, I'm just not that impressed by the fact that a self-promoter like the Lew of this article did get written up in a few places. I suppose that I can see your argument for keeping the article. and will change to a very tepid keep.E.M.Gregory (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:09, 31 July 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 00:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iniya Tamil[edit]

Iniya Tamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of this is suggestively notable for any applicable notability and my own searches simply found 2 local articles from November. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:26, 15 July 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. North America1000 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analisa Leppanen[edit]

Analisa Leppanen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article gives at most one indication of significance: being one of the foremost authorities on one particular artist. Google shows little or no substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Google Scholar shows her published works, but one has only three citations and the rest none. She doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably because you searched google for Analisa Leppanen instead of Analisa Leppanen-Guerra, the name she has published under most. Searching by Leppanen_Guerra brings back tons of articles. Billyglad (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Leppanen is one of the foremost authorities on Joseph Cornell, as a writer and artist I would find that very significant. Probably her expertise extends to surrealism in general. If nothing else, she should make valuable contributions to any articles on Cornell and links back to her credentials would be essential for judging the weight of her opinions. Billyglad (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Is she one of the two foremost authorities or one of the 45 foremost authorities? I lean toward attributing less significance to vaguely worded claims made by people about themselves. Largoplazo (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that to say that someone is authoritative is to say that they are a significant player in the world of scholarship, in this case Cornell scholarship. Maybe looking at the acknowledgements in this excerpt from one of her books will give us an idea of the level at which Leppanen plays. https://books.google.com/books?id=Qne_wqJfbFsC&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=joseph+cornell+scholars&source=bl&ots=TY700_GBuE&sig=EU-P1yXKNAIaHjr8XM1Ww27muE8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6N2svOrNAhUFQiYKHTbqAE84ChDoAQg4MAQ#v=onepage&q=joseph%20cornell%20scholars&f=false. I'd add that it's significant that she published a multi-media work (Joseph Cornell's Manual of Marvels), which included a book of essays, a partial facsimile, and a CD-ROM, on Cornell's book-object, which was the first artist's book of its kind --a groundbreaking work of scholarship that revealed Cornell's book to other scholars and the general public. And your Google search should have turned up Julie Bloom's full-page review in the New York Times (Dec. 2, 2012) and Jed Perl's glowing review in the New Republic (Dec. 5, 2012)." Billyglad (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad Also, I believe a Google search on Analisa Leppanen-Guerra the other name she has published and lectured under will turn up much more coverage than the articles you found searching just on Analisa Leppanen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyglad (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC) This page is looking good this morning.Billyglad (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Billyglad[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 15 July 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. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players[edit]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Algeria national football team season, this article was mentioned as having very doubtful notablility. There is no evidence that it passes WP:GNG and the sourcing for individual footballers does not prove that the list is complete. How can we be sure that all players are listed and none has been missed? I think it should be deleted, it is simple not notable Qed237 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:08, 15 July 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 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AskMeBazaar[edit]

AskMeBazaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is undergoing too many edits with negative comments from an anonymous user and deletion from other anonymous users. The article is being used as a complaint forum. The content of the article is written in a promotional manner. Gayatri0704 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : We can have page protection to avoid further disruptions from IPs instead.— TOG 20:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:04, 15 July 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Webe Kadima[edit]

Webe Kadima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing in this article that seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Slashme (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the notability criteria for academics does Prof. Kadima fulfil? --Slashme (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" in 2004, when "she went back to the Congo ... concentrating her research on plants used in the Congo to treat diabetes. She created ... the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute, whose mission was to investigate medicinal plants used in the Congo." This is unusual and thus in my eyes notable, indeed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a reasonable argument. --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that the reference list has more entries, but they're all web pages and other such insignifcances. Her departmental listing does not help the notability argument. Is the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute that she created notable, or is just another institute in the vast sea of non-profits? Agricola44 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I've taken a look at the article in question: she's third author along with Rabenstein and Isab,[1] (Edit: sorry, that's not the one in question - wrong journal. I couldn't find her Inorganica Chimica Acta publication.) and Rabenstein published quite a lot in that field. It's good to get a publication out of your M.Sc., but hardly unusual. I see that she was later first author on a paper looking at the stability of the cadmium-glutathione complex in hemolysed red blood cells.[2] That's solid science, but not really a notable breakthrough or surprising discovery as far as I can tell. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, second edit to clear things up: I found the Inorganica Chimica Acta article. It is not about glutathione, cadmium or erythrocytes, which is why I didn't find it right away: it's about the kinetics of palladium ethylenediamine chloride in solution.[3] Again, solid science. The discovery that cadmium binds to glutathione and hemoglobin is indeed not trivial, and that's why it got published in a peer-reviewed journal, but discovering non-trivial facts about nature is what scientists do. My Biochem M.Sc. study leader did most of her work in Africa, and has over 60 publications, compared to Kadima's 17, and I have great respect for her, but she's still not notable by Wikipedia standards. So my take-away from this is that Kadima is professionally competent, but not notable as a researcher, so we have to decide notability based on the fact that she founded the Bioactive Botanical Research Institute. --Slashme (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Slashme: Thank you very much for collating the information about her scientific publications. I added a summary to the article, to make it easier for an administrator to make a valuable decision about keeping or deleting this article. It will also enable search engines to find this article more easily. I fully agree with you, that articles about non-notable persons should be deleted from Wikipedia, but I think, on this occasion, the notability threshold has easily been passed, at least according to the standards of the German Wikipedia, with which I am more familiar. Fingers and toes crossed... --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I translated this article to German (de:Webe Kadima), I noted that she has received a $200,000 national science fund, which is another indication of her notability. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here's the documentation on the NSF grant: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1008535 And she is the principal investigator for it. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NSF, they make 12000 awards per year, so getting an NSF grant is not evidence of notability. --Slashme (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rabenstein, Dallas L.; Isab, Anvarhusein A.; Kadima, Webe; Mohanakrishnan, P. (July 1983). "A proton nuclear magnetic resonance study of the interaction of cadmium with human erythrocytes". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research. 762 (4): 531–541. doi:10.1016/0167-4889(83)90057-5.
  2. ^ Kadima, Webe; Rabenstein, Dallas L. (October 1990). "A quantitative study of the complexation of cadmium in hemolyzed human erythrocytes by1H NMR spectroscopy". Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 40 (2): 141–149. doi:10.1016/0162-0134(90)80047-2.
  3. ^ Kadima, W.; Zador, M. (January 1983). "Kinetics on interaction of Pd(en)Cl2 with inosine in chloride containing aqueous solutions". Inorganica Chimica Acta. 78: 97–101. doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(00)86496-8.
Bottom line, to me this seems like an entry that is reliable despite limited sources, on a topic that Wikipedia presently does a very poor job covering (actually several topics: women in science in Africa!) I think this is a case where following the rules here would be at odds with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia: WP:BURO / WP:IAR. Not to mention that even as stated, the BLP notability rules mean "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" WP:BASIC; and I don't see that any of the specific grounds for exclusion WP:NOT apply here. So, keep. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 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 - The article has been improved since nomination and consensus here is to keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Louisa Bustill[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maria Louisa Bustill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. She was related to notable people but the article doesn't make a case for her notability. All the references are related to her family members. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:55, 15 July 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  07:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maung Maung Gyi (politician)[edit]

Maung Maung Gyi (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was unable to verify his WP:NOTABILITY. There was a scholar born 20 years later, which makes it more difficult. This has been unsourced for 10 years; hopefully we can now establish if it meets criteria for inclusion. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 15 July 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. Hut 8.5 21:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tazawa[edit]

Erika Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substance at all to suggest the independent notability and my searches are not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a minor competition (takes place in church halls apparently), and there is no coverage of the competition from major sources or institutions as far as I can see from Googling. It does not imo contribute to making the article subject notable and I would be in favour of delete.--Smerus (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated my comment above to a definite delete. Nothing has emerged which indicates that the subject passes either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there probably is some COI editing going on, but that isn't a consideration in the decision to delete an article if the subject is notable, unless the article is such a blatant advert that it would need to be completely rewritten, which is not the case here. The primary problem is there is no evidence that subject meets the inclusion critera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't implying a direct influence (otherwise I wouldn't have started a separate topic on a noticeboard), but I can, for instance, see a potentially COI editor being invited to this AfD (as it happens the same editor who successfully counteracted the deletion of another article of the same pool of connected articles – as it happens a biography of one of the composers of Tazawa's CD) – In the case such editor would cast a !vote here, it would make a difference, when assessing the weight of that opinion, whether there is a COI or not. So, for this AfD, just a heads up for what may result from the COIN thread. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, possibly there is a fourth editor in the pool: this editor created an article on yet another composer of Tazawa's CD, but that article has since been deleted (see User talk:Contemporarymuslover#Proposed deletion of Francesco di fiore). Lacking the edit history of the deleted article I wasn't sure whether to add them to the COIN thread (and finally didn't because they have only one remaining edit). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about other related WP:WALLEDGARDEN articles and COI (recommend !voters to read it)
  • Comment: "Plan"
See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Susman / Sommacal
Originally I had said, at the William Susman AfD, that I didn't think Belarca Records would be viable as stand-alone article, however, this may be sufficient independent reliable sources on their CDs for such article:
So the article could be somewhat like this: its lead section about the label's founder and the Naxos distribution;
Also the formerly deleted Francesco Di Fiore may redirect here
Other titles can be made into redirects to this section too.
(sorry for the unusual presentation of this plan: I created this reply on a separate page in my userspace in order to post it as a template on several AfDs concurrently) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this, if I have understood you correctly, is that Belarca Records is not a notable label and currently redirects to William Susman, who at least has a marginal notability. It is basically no different than a self-published book. It has very few recordings, and all of them including or devoted to Susman's work. And note that it is marketed through Naxos Direct, which, as has been pointed out. is no different to Amazon or CDBaby. It is not a sub-label of Naxos Records. Finally, small labels like this draw their notability from the notability of the artists and ensembles who record for them. If none of them are independently notable, then neither is the label. In my view, this is not helpful. The decision should be made on each of the artist/ensemble articles separately. This kind of transclusion of a sub-discussion also causes a potential mess in AfDs. Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll "subst:" the template content to the AfD pages in order to avoid creating AfD confusion. Can we keep the centralised discussion on this idea at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Susman#William Susman here then (no need to do the same discussion over in the different places)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Susman seems likely to survive its AfD: the "Plan" above (resucitate Belarca Records as a separate article) might still be applied, in which case Erika Tazawa might be converted into a redirect to that article. I'm not sure myself whether that would be a good idea, but I suppose here is the place to discuss such ideas right now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. Take it to the Belarca AfD or Belarca talk if it's about the Belarca article. We never "centralize" discussion on AfDs, because once the AfD closes, that's it. MSJapan (talk) 05:10, 23 July 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 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Krez[edit]

Don Krez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced and advertorially-toned WP:BLP of a person who has his fingers in a lot of pies, but which doesn't make any quantifiable claims of passing Wikipedia's notability standards for any of those occupations. Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which anybody gets to have a promotional profile just because they exist -- they must be demonstrated as passing WP:GNG for one or more specific achievements. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:53, 15 July 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. czar 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWarfare League[edit]

AfDs for this article:
TeamWarfare League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No appearance in reliable sources or books. No idea why the last afd had no votes- Prisencolin (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no sources for this school except Facebook and a few mirror sites, seems like it fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it has no citations? Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It had citiation before someone must have removed it. Please check edit history. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 14:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The citation was removed by unknown Ip user. I will add again. Nepali keto62 Questions?!?!? 14:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says “Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.” Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But where are the independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to remind me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapha International School, where some experienced editors wanted the article kept simply because it asserted that the school was a secondary school, even though not a single source was cited in the article! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All we'd really need is just one source verifying that it exists -- this isn't GNG. Google web search displays a link for some kind of .gov site that lists this place -- but the link won't open on my browser. An official FB page lists a school website, but you have to request the link and I have not yet received access -- and perhaps won't. Plus there seems to be at least 2 different public FB pages by students and alumni. That .gov site -- whatever it is -- leaves me reasonably confident this place exists -- though I can see why others are unsatisfied. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 16 July 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. Of note is that the article was rewritten while this AfD discussion was occurring. North America1000 02:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Nut Bay[edit]

Oil Nut Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clearly promotional article for a proposed residential subdivision. It doesn't seem to actually exist yet, though construction of some of the infrastructure has started. We've been fairly consistent in not generally considering these communities as populated places. There are sources. The sources are press releases, no matter where they've been published--we go by the content for this. Kudpung called this one to my attention as an example of the sort of promotional editing we may not be able to do anything about, because though it can be assumed to be a paid edit, we have no effective means of determining that. I disagree with him: I hope we do have an effective means, which is right here at AfD,for we can use of own judgment on the likely origin and purpose . There might be notability, but I think this still falls under CRYSTAL. Borderline notability combined with apparent promotionalism is an good reason for deletion. . Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Nut Bay offers exclusive guests the safety and seclusion of their own private island plus high end resort amenities and services. One of the world’s most secluded, most comfortable and pristine natural settings with only 88 sites spread across 300 acres, each freehold owned home site has been sculpted to fit seamlessly into Oil Nut Bay’s overall plan— providing enduring, spectacular views for generations while maintaining and preserving the privacy of the natural landscape.

And this second Forbes "article":

The next custodian of this meticulously-built property will be one of the lucky few to enjoy the most exclusive location on Virgin Gorda—and arguably anywhere in the Caribbean. Just ask your neighbors Richard Branson and Larry Page. (Full disclosure: My husband and I have worked with Higbie Maxon Agney on previous real estate listings.)

UGH! Wikipedia should not be hosting links to this rubbish, let alone the article itself. Note also the disclaimer under both the Forbes advertorials "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After the complete refocus of the article by Aymatth2, I agree an argument can be made for keeping this as a geographical feature, but frankly, I don't see why this minimal amount of information and coverage should not be simply included in Virgin Gorda. The coverage of the geographical feature itself in Google books is really very minimal, sentences here and there in the discussion of more general topics. Is it really worthy of a stand-alone article? If it is kept, any mention of the "luxury development" needs to come from completely independent sources, and so far there is zero. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who blanked it and rewrote it as a bay. I'm sure the Virgin Gorda article could be fully expanded. I'm sure we could argue to merge most bay and geo articles into general articles on the area, but that's not what wikipedia is about. We ought to have several articles on bays of the Virgin Islands.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this version. I was not referring to your version which continues to plug the development sourced solely to blatant advertorials, including the highly misleading conflation of the Oil Nut Bay Marina which is still under construction and not even listed at the official BVI tourism website [35] and the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda, which is in North Sound Bay and is not part of Oil Nut Bay development. Not to mention the bizarre claim in the advertorial that private marinas are "rare" in that part of the Caribbean. Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is this place is well documented in reputable publications, even regional journals. You can't possibly claim all information about a resort is an "advert". I have a lot of experience with writing on hotels and resorts and know what is acceptable. If we failed to report this multi million dollar development and marina we'd be censoring wikipedia. A general article on the bay and a paragraph on the development is perfectly acceptable. The reality is that you thought it wreaked of COI and thoroughly disliked the way that it was started, and I agree. But Aymatth and myself have given it an overhaul, I added a bit on the local flora too. This sort of attitude towards the effort of people who try to salvage or improve articles on here is one of the main reasons I'm relunctant to edit much here anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're also wrong about it not being mentioned on the tourism site. It's the marina at the bottom. I have restructured the section to indicate that the marina is to the southwest and not at Oil Bay itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the marina mentioned at the bottom of that list is the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda which is not in Oil Nut Bay. The smaller marina still under construction at Oil Nut Bay is not mentioned on the list. And the sources you used which I consider obvious advertorials as opposed to genuine independent coverage are this and this. I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair amount of independent coverage of the resort and its impact on the bay, some positive, some negative. An expensive development like this tends to attract attention. Locals complaining about attempts to restrict access to the bay for swimming and fishing, turtles, drunken power boaters, that sort of thing. The potential is there for a larger article, although it would take watching to weed out attempts at advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 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 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kooapps[edit]

Kooapps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No notable games. I removed the "reception" section, leaving it with very little. Created and edited by single-issue editor Faviola Publico (talk · contribs), possibly a WP:COI. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:07, 15 July 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. Clear consensus; whatever remaining doubts there are about just who he is, everyone seems to agree there is no justifiable basis for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Trey Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP and the subject does not appear to be at all notable, so it's unlikely there will be any reliable sources to add any time soon. The only coverage outside of the subject's personal blogs and other user-generated websites is this article in a local magazine written by the subject.

This page was originally a stub about Will Smith's son by the same name, so the first AFD was about redirecting that one to Will Smith's article. Then the same page was used to create this article and the 2nd AFD is about this same Brian "Trey" Smith. The result was delete, but then it was recreated in 2015. All of the substantive edits to this article have been by SPAs that have almost exclusively edited this article. —PermStrump(talk) 08:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or make it a protected redirect to Will Smith's article. I would also keep an eye at Trey Smith (author) if this is deleted.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes to to the histmerging on all counts (I don't see any real reason there needs to be multiple histories about either person) and yes to deleting the God in a nutshell guy. I'm not sure if Will Smith III should be deleted though, I haven't looked into his notability very much. A quick glance at his IMBD page doesn't really answer that either, as he's has a few media appearances, but generally seems to stay out of the spotlight. So I think a separate AfD for him might be more appropriate. That could be undertaken after the histmerge, or if it seems likely to you that a keep vote would be a snowball, without any histmerge of his articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MjolnirPants. There's no reason to keep their histories. Can we make it harder for someone to recreate the article about the God in a Nutshell/safe "robber" guy again without demonstrating he has actually become notable?
I don't have a strong a strong opinion either way about Will Smith's son. I guess I don't see a problem keeping "Trey Smith (Will Smith)" as a redirect to Will Smith#Personal_life. —PermStrump(talk) 00:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not much of an argument since the nominator removed secondary sources before nomination.  In any case, sources in the article do not define wp:notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only removed sources 2 sources, neither of which seemed to exist. The links were broken and when I looked them up the only hits were WP and mirror sites. The only source I could find is the one I linked in the nom that was written by the subject and said the same things his blog already says, which was already sourced to his blog, so I didn't see a reason to add it. —PermStrump(talk) 20:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrigan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Karrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

E-sports player. Was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but is now submitted for discussion to determine notability per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 7. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  06:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:14, 15 July 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 00:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Real with Joseph Azarian[edit]

The Real with Joseph Azarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the listed sources are actually convincing and my own searches have found nothing actually better; there's nothing to suggest merging either. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know how to edit Wikipedia but there is Amazon Prime, just a thought. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.84.10 (talk) 01:40, 17 July 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 Islamic schools and branches. There is near-unanimous consensus to not keep this as a stand-alone article. Opinion is somewhat more split between outright deletion and redirect. Going with the redirect, partly on strength of numbers, partly because of WP:ATD, and partly because that's what this was historically.

One of the points of contention here is what specific meaning the word denomination has, in the context of Islam. As near as I can make out from the discussion here, it has a less specific meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity, but there's no real consensus on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim denominations[edit]

Muslim denominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page duplicates Islamic schools and branches primarily, but also Islam by country to a certain extent. "Muslim denominations" has been a redirect for years, until this Turkish IP user converted the redir into what it is now. I have seen this IP frequently edit pages that list Islamic subgroups, such as Template:Islamic theology, and seems to be oblivious about the common English definition of "denomination" (see this discussion). Islamic schools and branches is the main list for the classification of Islamic subgroups, having gotten its current title after discussions several years ago. Eperoton and I agree that Muslim denominations is a redundant page and should be reverted to a redirect, but the IP needs convincing. Hopefully this AfD will do. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And guess who made it that long? It would save thousands of bytes if you would have used a WP:BULLETLIST instead of sub-sub-sub headers, and if you would've simply used a link in the main text instead of calling Template:Main for each subsection. - HyperGaruda (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drikulaeri: One simple question: what is the difference between a branch and a denomination? - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most common term, judging from phrase counts in Google books, is "the Sunni sect", followed by "the Sunni branch", followed by "the Sunni denomination", and I see no evidence that these terms are used differently in RSs. We don't create separate articles for synonyms of a word. Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance to this AfD discussion? Eperoton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Schools of Islamic theology and Sufism do not belong to the denominations. But, Sufism might be considered as part of Branches. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you will nevertheless find they are Sunnis.

References

  1. ^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 62.
  2. ^ Theodore Gabriel, Rabiha Hannan (2011). Islam and the Veil: Theoretical and Regional Contexts. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 58.
  3. ^ Aaron W. Hughes (2013). Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 129.
  4. ^ Muzaffar Husain Syed; Syed Saud Akhtar; B D Usmani (2011). Concise History of Islam. Vij Books India. p. 73.
  5. ^ Ali Paya (2013). The Misty Land of Ideas and The Light of Dialogue: An Anthology of Comparative Philosophy: Western & Islamic. ICAS Press. p. 23.
  6. ^ Joseph Kostiner (2009). Conflict and Cooperation in the Gulf Region. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 212.
  7. ^ Muhammad Moj (2015). The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies. Anthem Press. p. 13.
Comment - 2 : The information provided above is incorrect. Ash'ari alone which is aqida in Islam is not a denomination since there is no such group of people following this. Reference provides false information 212.253.113.70 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there's another policy you need to consult: WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to recommend the IP to read WP:TRUTH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Islamic Theology[edit]

If you read the article on Amman Message, it gives an impression as if Maturidi and Ash'ari were "Muslim denominations". But this is not true since nobody calls himself as a member of Maturidi orAsh'ari alone. In order to define their denominations they have to define their own madhhabs as well. Otherwise, they will be non-denominational. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you glance at the template-Islam, you can easily see that the Denominations section is in contradiction with what is written in Islamic schools and branches article. The Schools of Islamic theology are mentioned and summarized in the Islamic schools and branches article, even though everybody knows that they are not Muslim denominations, but different denominations have something common with them. For example, a member of Hanafi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Maturidi or Ash'ari aqidah. Similarly, a member of Zaydi denomination may have views or share some ideas of Mu'tazili aqidah. Hence, we need Muslim denominations for details. When you click to denominations section in template islam, it automatically takes you to Islamic schools and branches article. This article includes things which are not related to Muslim denominations, therefore this links needs correction as well. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me again recommend reading WP:OR. You have been prolific in expressing your personal take on the meaning of the word "denomination" here and elsewhere, but personal opinions don't carry much weight around here. Eperoton (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to template - Islam they are not denominations, this is your announcement and template - Islam is well-protected, ıf they are really denominations why they are not listed in the template - Islam? 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to consult WP:RS. WP templates are not RSs. Whether or not that template needs changing is a discussion which belongs not here, but on its own talk page. Eperoton (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be in contradiction with another Wikipedia item since all these article's contents are closely related with each other. Actually, people learn from Wikipedia pages when they continue to make heir contributions. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get far by sharing your opinions ex cathedra and disregarding WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to stay within the boundary of the previously approved Wikipedia articles and the template - Islam is restricting our actions. If you will express something which is in contradiction with the template - Islam you're supposed to make the necessary changes there first, I believe. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "approved" articled on WP. Sometimes an extensive discussion yields a WP:CONSENSUS. A quick perusal of the template's talk archives shows that it's not the case here. Eperoton (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Then. I thought we are restricted to these templates, because there was a long discussion in the past about this template. As a result of these discussions, they did considerable modifications on the Template:Religion topics, and they were very useful.
I've learned more than 90% my knowledge from Wikipedia pages. Also consider this: There were Hanafi denominations from Mu'tazila aqidah in the history even tough today all converted Maturidi & Ash'ari. 212.253.113.70 (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a series on
Islam
Beliefs
Practices
History
Culture and society
Related topics
  • Islamic schools and branches provides false information about the M-denominations
    1. Schools of Islamic Theology cannot be a part of M-denominations: Nobody calls themselves as Athari, Maturidi or Ash'ari when their denom. is asked. In addition, template:Islam concurs with tis notion.
    2. Amman Message declares the officially recognized M-denoms as Eight. You can increase this number by adding some other minorities, who are not accepted by the declaration of the Amman Message.
    3. Sufi tariqat cannot be included under the denominations since they are all sunni or Shi'ite.

    Therefore Islamic schools and branches cannot be identical to Muslim denominations] 212.253.113.96 (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    212.253.113.96 (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    212.253.113.96 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 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 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Young Xero[edit]

    Young Xero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Frankly I would've PRODed too, searches noticeably found nothing better at all and there's nothing suggesting the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising per G11. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Love And Snow: A Novel[edit]

    Love And Snow: A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Frankly I would've PRODed but that may be removed so here we are; my searches have simply found a few local news articles but nothing at all actually convincing for the needed substance and this is apparently her first book so no convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs to be closed as the article has been speedy deleted; and I'm involved. Hx7 09:56, 16 July 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 00:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweans Technologies[edit]

    Sweans Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    PROD removed with the basis that the extra sources are enough, but examining them simply found PR-speak contents, nothing of actual substance and ym own searches have found nothing better, as mentioned by my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:58, 15 July 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, default to keep. Opinion is clearly divided as to whether the subject has adequate notability, with valid arguments on both sides. Cleanup is recommended, but in the absence of overwhelming WP:BLP concerns I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 09:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Lisa Tenner[edit]

    Lisa Tenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. None of the online refs I can see seem to be about the subject. It is possible some offline sources may be (the titles of the articles on "Las Vegas Weekly" and "All In" sound promising), but I have trouble verifying them (if we could see the scans, we could make a decision based on those). I did not prod it because I expect that the creator (User:I'm Tony Ahn, a self-disclosed PR professional) would likely challenge this and we would end up here. On the bright side, I hope he can also provide us with the scans of those sources for verification. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should assume good faith and nobody should require a writer to provide scans of print publications under the threat of excluding those sources otherwise, when they are available through a number of other channels (like LexisNexis). That sets a dangerous precedent. That said, I wouldn't have challenged a prod. This article is not being serviced by our agency at this time. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am puzzled. Whether an article is serviced by your agency or not, this should not matter. Unless you are saying that you will write and defend articles for $$$ only, regardless of them being notable or not. In this case, if she is notable, you should say so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second or third time that you've made a statement to me contain a subtext that editors are required to do further work if they've done past work. "You forgot to add categories," was the last one. I don't have to add categories. I don't have to defend anything I've written. I don't have say someone is notable. I don't have to do anything. What I will say at this time is that when my agency writes an article, it offers a refund if the article is deleted in a certain amount of time after it is written. We also offer monitoring and updating of articles. If we've just written an article that is deemed worthy to be in mainspace by an independent reviewer, and moved there by that editor, then it is AfD'd, yes I take an active role in the discussion. However, as a PR practitioner who was paid to write the article, I recognize my opinion may be given less weight than others, which is reasonable, so I don't think stating why I think a subject who we're not servicing is notable at AfD is a good use of my writing time or your reading time. And let me categorically state, that from this account, I ONLY write and defend articles for money. I have edited as User:Archer904 (started in 2005, retired now) and to this day still edit on my personal account User:Noraft. That account has created some of Wikipedia's best content. This account is my public relations agency account to separate my paid editing. So while this account "will write and defend articles for $$$ only," it is NOT regardless of the subject being notable or not. I turn away many more potential clients than I accept. First I send them here: Paid Wikipedia Article Requirements. Half don't come back after reading that. A third come back with questionable or unreliable sources (blogs without independent editorial review, and yes, we turn them away) and another eighth come back saying "I've got no press, how much do you charge to get me press?" (then they run when they see the prices are thousands of dollars). Only about one in six who approach us actually become clients, because we believe they are notable. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, believe it or not, I don't have much against paid editors, through I do have trouble understanding why you wouldn't want to defend articles you have written for $$$ - even if the customers are no longer paying, they are, a) part of your portfolio, and b), presumably beneficial to Wikipedia (or you should not have created them in the first place). Regarding print sources requirement, it is not necessary to produce them - but that makes them hard to verify, and at AfD, AGF for sources is not often extended. Particularly when visible online sources are poor, it stands to reason the non-visible ones will be poor too. To prove otherwise, we have to see them. In other words, when visible sources are poor, saying "but my non-visible sources are good, trust me" is not very effective. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you had anything against paid editors. I said I don't think my opinion carries as much weight, nor should it. That should be other members of the community. I don't defend articles I'm not paid to defend because time on the clock that is not generating revenue is a cost center. If I can generate two dollars a minute, spending an hour in AfD is an opportunity cost of $120 and an actual cost of my hourly wage. I get paid to add notable content like John Lemp to the encyclopedia where individuals such as yourselves can benefit from the third party financial investment in expanding Wikipedia's coverage. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No good faith on the articles, eh? You have to verify? I've never seen anyone else asked in AfD to produce all the print publications. But okay. They are below. Also, Lisa is reading your comments and finds your mockery hurtful. She said "I danced from age 9 to 18 and was paid. I performed in his West Coast dance troupe at the Greek Theatre."
    I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, what does this have to do with her notability? Heck, I was in an ice-skating show when I was 4 years old that also featured an olympic skater. I don't put it in my resume because, among other things, not only do I no longer ice skate, it has nothing to do with my current work. This is not a resume nor is Wikipedia an advertising outlet. Sorry if her feelings are hurt, but are you being paid to create this article, Tony?? Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Information is included in encyclopedia articles to provide a well rounded view of the subject. Most encyclopedic biographies include information about the subject's early years. I included the ballet experience because a nine year activity with professional affiliation at a young age seemed like it would speak to her focus and drive, which would help the reader have a better picture of who she is. That information has been edited out of the current version however, so the point is mute unless someone puts it back. I cannot do so, as per WP:COI.
    I do appreciate you providing the sources. First, a statement from the subject's interview should be attributed to the subject clearly. "In an interview in Foo Magazine, she stated that...". Regarding sources: [44] does not have much in-depth coverage of her, but it does state she won some awards which the publication claims are big deal in the industry, through it would be good to see a more independent source confirm this award is indeed significant (this could help with WP:ANYBIO#1). Gaming Today is a trade magazine ("Weekly newspaper founded in 1976 covers all aspects of the industry."). [45] from Las Vegas Weekly does seem like a more in-depth coverage. The other three sources suggest that the EAT'M UP event may be notable, through notability is not inherited. Overall, the LVW reference is pretty helpful, and does push this closer to being notable. Not close enough for me to withdraw it right now, but close enough I'll ping User:FoCuSandLeArN and User:Montanabw to see what they think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Piotrus' comments above, as well as Montanabw's. I'm Tony Ahn, you need to calm down with your outrage. Nobody's asking you to produce "all the print publications". Checking sources is the whole point of an AfD discussion; we must therefore review what's available, the whole point of this is guaranteeing the subject sees appropriate consideration. Your tone indicates you might have other intentions at play. Nobody made hurtful comments; your COI is showing. Finally, the subject's opinion has no place in this discussion. They might be sure they're fantastic dancers who've changed the way the world sees the art form, but without extensive coverage about it they just don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Will make the change. If you want to confirm the award is significant, why not do some research instead of asking to be waited on? FoCuS, he asked me to produce them all for Martin Shirran. ALL. Here just half. My point is, asking an article creator to prove something you can verify yourself (Hoof it to the library and get on LexisNexis) lest the article be deleted is a Bad Thing, in my opinion. It shouldn't be on that person. Notice nobody is saying "Does anyone have access to this periodical?" or "I'm hoping someone can provide scans." I'm being asked. Just me. That's not right. Also, your interpretation of my emotional states is off (and attributing outrage to someone is a marginalizing tactic, so thanks for that), but I'll help you. I don't feel outrage. I feel contempt, which doesn't stem from anger, it stems from disappointment in what is happening to Wikipeida. Contempt (as I feel it) is defined as "the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn." And I feel this process is worth less and less as it changes. It wasn't like this before. I preferred the way it was to the way it is becoming. And that's alright. I'm entitled to my preferences and to my contempt. Hurtful is defined as "causing distress to someone's feelings," and the subject was hurt. Do you not see how saying the line was "a howler" (which the means "something to laugh hard at" i.e. worthy of ridicule) and alleging false claims would hurt someone's feelings? And I didn't share her opinion. I told you her emotional reaction in a bid to get you to realize that the things you say affect other people that aren't parties to this process. In a nutshell, be less insensitive. I'll go dig up some of what I've been asked to provide. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional sources:

    I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pokernews is not a reliable source. Bahamas Weekly piece is clearly a press release. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    POOLSAFE[edit]

    POOLSAFE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No independent third-party sources about the organization. Fails WP:GNG. Note that there are other products and organizations named Poolsafe so be careful when finding sources. Contested prod by article author. shoy (reactions) 12:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:32, 15 July 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 under A7. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 13:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hacksurance[edit]

    Hacksurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NCORP. Sources say nothing about Hacksurance as a company, they're just three copies of the same two-minute CNBC piece about cyberattack insurance that happens to use the word "hacksurance" in their headline. McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 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 and redirect to Cherrybelle. Jujutacular (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hasunal Miftah Israfani[edit]

    Hasunal Miftah Israfani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced article on one member of a pop group, in a business that rotates the talent frequently in the groups. No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with the group, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages on Cherrybelle members, for the reasons given above:

    Christy Saura Noela Unu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Novi Herlina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vasundhara Metro Mall[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Vasundhara Metro Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Trivial mentions in news article, claiming no notability, failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Freewire[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Freewire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    This has been re-nominated in hopes of coming to a consensus.
    This article seems to lack notability seeing that no news sources have seeemingly reported on it in years. Also the website doesn't even exist so there isn't really a way for us to find out what has happened to it. Which could harm its factual accuracy. Furthermore this article could be confused by an American start-up also with the name Freewire technolgies. TheUSConservative (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I'm fixing the nomination since this came up with the old AfD content. The prior AfD can be seen here. I have no opinion on the AfD at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:28, 15 July 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. After three relists, mixed comments in the discussion, and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Goyenda Ginni[edit]

    Goyenda Ginni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable tv serial. There are numerous tv serials broadcast in indian tv like this. This is not a special one. Also there is no reliable secondary source for notability. Mar11 (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 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. After three relists, mixed comments in the discussion, and lack of discussion, a consensus cannot be determined. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ovation Pharmaceuticals[edit]

    Ovation Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I've been watching this article for quite some time and concluded it was time to nominate, my searches have frankly found nothing better than pieces of news and PR, certainly nothing to suggest an actually better article, however. The current 2 sources are simply PR themselves. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    sufficient sources? the article only cites press releases. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was talking about the additional sources that have been mentioned here and that I found in searching. I intend to add them to the article before the next round of discussion expires. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 02:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I don't normally relist for a 3rd time but I think this would benefit the discussion — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association[edit]

    Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    NN local film critics group. To evaluate the statements made about the group's reliability would require WP:SYNTH, and still only apply to one of many awards the group hands out, which aren't even mentioned in the related articles. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:22, 15 July 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. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    List of C-TRAN (Washington) bus routes[edit]

    List of C-TRAN (Washington) bus routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I don't think it's notable to have a list of bus routes for a suburban city. In addition, Portland's list (close to here) was deleted also. CouvGeek (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 00:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Treedom Group[edit]

    The Treedom Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Repeatedly tagged as A7, placing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:21, 15 July 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. In view of subsequent improvements, I'm withdrawing the AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Vermont Woods Studios[edit]

    Vermont Woods Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Sources consist of a HP item that,as is typical for them, is basically a disguised press release, and inclusion as one of a number of companies mentioned in a USA Today Home article. That's not enough for notability . DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 03:18, 15 July 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. After this discussion has been relisted twice, it seems there's is no apparent consensus to delete this page. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebecca Masisak[edit]

    Rebecca Masisak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I couldn't find significant coverage of Ms. Masisak in independent, reliable secondary sources. Moreover the tiny amount of coverage I did find was all about her position at TechSoup Global. (See WP:BLP1E.) -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thought. I haven't done a completely thorough review for Ben-Horin but he does appear to have received significant coverage in Google Books. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. 0 of the 2 references cited in the Daniel Ben-Horin article indicate adequate notability for inclusion on Wikipedia per policy. Hmlarson (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to TechSoup Global. That said, Hmlarson makes a good point, Daniel Ben-Horin should likewise be kept or merged on the same standard, as the only real difference is that he's a bit older and so there has been a bit more time for coverage, but in essence, if leading this company is notable for one person, it's notable for both. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Montanabw, what material would you merge? Also, I'm not sure that's what Hmlarson's point was, but maybe she can explain. Of course the notability of all BLPs is based on the same standard (WP:BIO). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much all of it, for both of these CEOs. Or keep both, depending on how notable being the CEO of the company is. My point is that if we don't think one (female) CEO is notable, then we do need to look at whether the previous (male) CEO is notable. Both bios could be merged into the TechSoup Global article, but if one of them is notable enough for a stand-alone article, I don't see much of an argument that the other is not equally notable, save for length of tenure. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • HappyValleyEditor,MurielMary I'm curious. What awards has she won? From what I could find, the coverage is really sparse and every single one refers to the fact that she is a CEO. I have not found anything which shows she is independently notable. We usually do not keep articles if the subject is covered only in relation to their job in a company. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev Randhawa as a recent example. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 00:36, 15 July 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 (but keep for now). I know this is very much a non-standard closure, but there is a reason for it - numerically the outcome of this discussion is clearly in favour of merging, but we have to go deeper than that as AfD is not a vote. The reason for the merge !votes is almost universally because the subject is notable only for one event, although various policies and guidelines were mentioned they all boil down to not having notability outside of the context of the attack in Nice. A good proportion of the arguments to keep were based on comparisons with other perpetrators with articles of there own, particularly Anders Behring Breivik, but those were refuted based on the much more extensive (in terms of both volume and scope) coverage in their articles. One argument, made by both keep and merge voters was WP:SIZE - the latter basing their view on the size of the article at the time of their comment and the former based on predictions of article length in the future. Predictions of article size are weak arguments when dealing with articles that are not about scheduled events or clearly foreseeable coverage, for example if Lahouaiej-Boulel had survived the attack it would not require a crystal ball to know there would be extensive coverage about a trial or reasons why he could not stand trial. However he is dead and so this coverage will not happen, and so the future shape of the article is much less clear so I found the "merge now, possibly split later" comments the stronger. In total I found that around half the keep votes were either successfully refuted in whole or in part or were so weak as to not need refuting (there were only 3 explicit delete comments, and one of them was, while tragic, not relevant here).

    Had I left it there, I would have just closed this as "merge" and moved on. However, there would be little point recommending a merge if it would just overwhelm the target article, particularly when most of the merge votes were actually "merge now, split again later if needed" so I had a look at this article and the target article, and a straight copy would clearly overload the main article. However there is quite a bit of duplication, and so I mentally subtracted that and the result was very borderline - so much so that if this were a merge discussion I probably shy away from offering an opinion one way or the other. Closing this AfD though doesn't give me that luxury, so I am swayed by E.M.Gregory's last comment to the discussion from 2 days ago changing their !vote from merge to keep on the basis of then-breaking news. Accordingly I am closing this AfD with a note that there was a clear consensus in favour of merging, but to hold off merging for a few weeks or so. If after that time the article is still about it's current length and there isn't significant additional coverage, of e.g. subject's relationships with the (alleged?) accomplices, then a merge discussion will be worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    PS in case it is not clear above, there is consensus that Lahouaiej-Boulel is not notable independently of the attacks in Nice, but it is borderline wheher there is enough written about him in that context to justify a spinout article from 2016 Nice attacks on article length grounds. If the amount of non-duplicated content increases in the next couple of weeks the article should almost certainly not be merged, if it does not then a merge discussion to confirm the consensus arrived at here (there could be other significant changes in the meanwhile) is recommended. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel[edit]

    Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The subject is not notable outside the context of the 2016 Nice attacks. No need for his own article; delete and redirect to 2016 Nice attack. GSMR (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put the following on the article Talk page too:
    My view is that considering the high death toll of the Nice attack and its corresponding significance, this justifies having a page solely for the attacker. I think this is the general rule that has been followed. For example, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, Khalid El Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui and Mohamed Abrini and Osama Krayem all have their own individual Wikipedia pages despite being only involved in a single attack (Brussels)
    Amedy Coulibaly also has his own page even though he was notable for his involvement in a singular event.
    These are clear precedents for an individual page. The proposed deletion should be removed/rejected
    Dave8899 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
    --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    obviously fulfills that description exactlyDave8899 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CRM#2 also says "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It's WP:TOOSOON to know about persistence. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This person killed over 80 people, and wounded 200 more, do you really think that nothing more is going to come out regarding this person? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know there will be? WP:CRYSTALBALL--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that when this AfD runs its 7 day course we will know for sure by then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my opinion to (Merge to 2016 Nice attack#Perpetrator) based on WP:SIZE. It has been a few days now, and nothing major has come forward to expand the article beyond its current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not particularly unusual: see Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic. Neutralitytalk 00:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So everybody that has ever been described as "strange" and "unusual" should be allowed a Wikipedia article? That isn't exactly what WP:NOTABILITY means.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the type of attack being notable which falls under CRM#2. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the caveat "Where there are no appropriate existing articles"--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    Breivik had a notable trial, and then a notable imprisonment. Still could do more. This guy's done doing things. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    " ... but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size."--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ... not only. Not if the event he is associated with is significant and his role in it was both substantial and well documented. See WP:BLP1E Erlbaeko (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple paragraphs is not "substantial" or "well-documented". Most of everything that is known about him is already in the main article.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 3 further concerns about the fork article. Firstly it uses immoderate language not allowed in the main article: as an example the subject is described in the lede without sources as a terrorist, while investigations are still in their infancy. Secondly standards for WP:RS have been relaxed to allow salacious details into the article, none of which appear even in summary form in the main article. Thirdly a large amount of content in the fork is still being created by copy-pasting new content from the main article without any attribution. the flow has not gone the other way so far. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Nice attack article is currently 28 KB.[68] If we expect the article to grow twice the size then a size split may be justified. WP:SIZESPLIT Waters.Justin (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUPLICATE and WP:OVERLAP are both valid reasons for merge.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there precisely to show that "other stuff exiting" is not a valid rationale for anything on Wikipedia, unless the other stuff exists because it is backed by policy (in which case, the rationale is the policy, and the stuff is just an example)? LjL (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I used OTHER STUFF EXISTS with full knowledge that it is listed as one of the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The addition of the words "in high numbers" was also deliberate as a demonstration of the extensive biographical coverage of those who have no other notability than as perpetrators. In addition to the hundreds of entries under Category:Assassins by nationality or Category:Murderers by nationality, some of whom, such as Jan Kubiš, are considered heroic figures, there is also Category:Mass murderers and its sub-Category:Islamist mass murderers, although subject's categorization as an Islamist has not yet been determined. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, no. This deletion hasn't even been open for 24 hours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pretty stupid having a big afd banner on a prominent article for seven days especially since there is mainly keep or a merge. Close the discussion and reopen the merge discussion on the talk page. 203.118.164.94 (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It gives time to improve the article though, if anything new comes to light it will be added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that an AfD can do to improve this article when nobody wanted to delete it in the first place. It seems more like this AfD was an accident, and instead was meant to be a discussion about merging (see the original user's comments at top about "deleting and redirecting").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    The closing decision at WP:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination) was to merge/redirect, not delete. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    They're stronger because they were central to more than one big event. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No they weren't. Amedy Coulibaly and Anders Behring Breivik are both also known for one event, the January 2015 Île-de-France attacks and 2011 Norway attacks, respectively. —Lowellian (reply) 15:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Coulibaly had the Porte de Vincennes siege. Breivik had the trial of Anders Behring Breivik. His manifesto was also widely covered and analysed, making him a notable author. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which are all related events that are part of or arising from the aforementioned core events. These are not independent events. And the fact that we have all these articles just further goes to show that, when an event is of sufficient magnitude, it is common Wikipedia practice to have multiple articles treating different aspects of an event, such as the subject of this AFD, the perpetrator of an event. —Lowellian (reply) 03:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about the other terrorists then? Cexycy (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other terrorists? How about Adolf Hitler? Please IP read WP:NOTCENSORED. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I was getting at. Adolph Hitler has his own article, doesn't he? Doesn't mean he is a decent worthy person Cexycy (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even in that case, I think he should only have an article in Wikipedia if he is relevant enough. I don't think he is. For example, in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, I would also tend to think it should be merged, but I understand the Tsarnaev brothers became relevant for reasons derived from the Boston Bombings and not only for the Boston Bombings. Same with Anders Breivik. I think 84.161.244.187 was trying to imply the perpetrator was nobody previous to the attack, and has not done anything relevant apart from that. Per WP:TOOSOON and other reasons mentioned in this discussion, I think this article shouldn't be deleted, but rather merged. Ron Oliver (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's speculative, is it not? Since the man is dead, he will never face trial, and although some details of the investigation may shed some light on his pathetic life, these would almost certainly be able to be included in the attack article in a paragraph or two, or less, yes? Neutralitytalk 19:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    More and more information can be obtained overtime and before you know it, you will have enough information to create a lengthy article. It would be interesting to find out more about what his aim was, considering he wasn't a strict Muslim, according to the information currently known. He may not stand trial but does that really matter? Police caught him in the act and shot him, so he didn't get away with it. Mark David Chapman only killed one person and he has led quite a simplistic life but he has an article. One of Wikipedia's qualities is consistency, so if you get rid of this article, you will have to get rid of articles for other terrorists or certain other killers, which would be pointless. Cexycy (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of opinions so far are against keeping, so, by definition, this is most definitely not a "snow keep", as that would mean that virtually everyone opined for keeping. They did not. LjL (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I understand that. I am saying that I myself think it's so obvious as to be a "snow keep". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard for that sort of thing is "Strong Keep". Not saying you have to use it, but it's less likely to confuse. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break[edit]

    Do you really think this relatively large article can easily be slapped into a section of 2016 Nice attack without deleting anything and yet without making that article unduly centered on the perpetrator? The WP:CRIM you mention does say that it is allowed to create a WP:SPINOUT article of a main article about a perpetrator if this is made necessary by reasons of size (like with most spinouts). Is this not the case here? LjL (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    *Merge in to 2016 Nice attack, Nothing to say as all what I had to say's already been said. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It may be instructive to review the arguments submitted at last month's discussion/vote at Talk:Omar Mateen/Archive 1#Separate article not needed. The closing decision was No consensus to merge. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion should've closed by an admin but either way consensus here may be to Merge.... –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Usually with articles like this it's more or less a paragraph on the "incident" and that's it and I assumed this was the case ... Turns out I was wrong & should've read the article first, Anyway the article looks to pass GNG so I don't see any valid reason for deletion and plus technically Merges should be discussed on the talkpage so Merging should be out of the question, Anyway keep. –Davey2010Talk 21:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like false equivalence, as the names you list were influential leaders of major terror attacks, and this is a (mostly) independent attacker apparently influenced by jihadist propaganda. FallingGravity (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    84 dead and 303 injured, but some think this is not a major terror attack. Wow. Just wow. XavierItzm (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not trying to say it's not a major terror attack; the difference I'm trying to bring up is that the perpetrator here is different from the people you list. FallingGravity (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    User:XavierItzm, the attack was major, it's just that when an attack is a coordinated, group effort, it can be functional to have separate articles about the leader, and sometimes about the other attackers. Here, there is no functional reason to separate out this bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 20 July 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.
    More