The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the only substantial contributor supports deletion and no one else has supported retention, this seems to meet speedy deletion criterion G7. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grizraz Hearteater[edit]

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

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

This character article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree. I think I created this page years ago when I didn't understand notability guidelines. I would say move any relevant content to Tailchaser's Song, but there's not much that merits moving. The reference to Orpheus and Eurydice is interesting but probably original research - there isn't that much of a parallel anyway. Nat2 (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:18, 9 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 03:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle B. Mercier[edit]

Kyle B. Mercier (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)

Winning a minor, regional technical award is not sufficient for notability. Tdslk (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No disrespect to the editors who have tried to tidy this up since it was created by an account that was only active for one hour, but the notability is just not there. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The creator has come back and added to it and actually made it worse. It really is just a puff piece for a non-notable person. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 06:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a local TV station technical director would need much better sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Another Regional Emmy winner that people think is notable. Even if his South Carolina awards are listed and sourced, he would still not be notable. — Wyliepedia 14:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still none of the needed substance for his own actual convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:35, 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.  Sandstein  07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzeria Venti[edit]

Pizzeria Venti (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 not seemingly notable chain of restaurants. I found one brief passing mention here (warning, seems to have NSFW popups on it) but nothing else Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Quick online search showed little evidence of notability. Aust331 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapping to Keep. @Northamerica1000: can you drop me a line and show me what search queries you used, because the standard Google web and news results drew a complete blank, preventing me from doing anything about the article. A shame, this would have been a good speedy - DYK candidate (I looked into improving the article after declining the CSD). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ritchie333: Sometimes the default "find sources" links atop AFD discussions do not provide much coverage; sources can often be found by customizing search terms a bit and not relying only on Google. See also: Criticism of Google § Possible misuse of search results. For starters, check out these custom searches: [1] and [2]. It's often necessary to view several pages after the first page of search results. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have also devised Wikipedia:Overreliance upon Google, which provides much more additional information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and compromise with Draft instead because all of the links above are simply local press talking (note especially the local TV stations) about its local businesses, there's still not enough substance to suggest a convincingly independently notable article of its own. SwisterTwister talk 07:45, 9 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. The suggestion to redirect to Harlem Shake (meme) certainly seems reasonable, and is in line with WP:ATD, but I see a clear enough delete consensus here that I'm going to go with that. If somebody wants to recreate this as a redirect, no problem with that. Discounting all of the keep comments which appear to be result of canvassing on reddit and express no policy-based reasoning. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Frank[edit]

If you came here because https://www.reddit.com/r/FilthyFrank/comments/4rzcyt/what_happened_to_franks_wikipedia_article/, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Filthy Frank (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 source mentions the subject uploading the first Harlem Shake (meme) video, all other sources are to the subject themselves. Falls well below WP:GNG & WP:BIO. JacktheHarry (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outside of the Harlem Shake meme, there are no independent sources that largely cover the other aspects of the article's subject. Also, WP:NRV. MageLam 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect as per Rhododendrites. The references to the Harlem Shake meme are completely trivial (the main focus seems to be on Baauer), and most everything else in the article is just channel statistics or YouTube videos. There's nothing here that remotely qualifies for passing GNG. GAB^gab 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - i think his article should stay since he is pretty famous youtuber --24.184.132.160 (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think this article should stay up. Miller's character has been on YouTube for a while, and other youtubers with lesser subscriber counts have been kept, so why not Filthy Frank, who has a much higher subscriber count than many other YouTubers? Perhaps it should be a Wikipedia policy that if a YouTuber has 1,000,000+ subscribers, they should have their articles kept, yet well maintained. Unfortunately not much information is known about Joji Miller beside his name, birthday, and background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.173.116.171 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC) 153.173.116.171 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

• I would try to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF in an AFD. Besides, the number of subscribers on YouTube doesn't give you WP:INHERITED nobility, there's probably other YouTubers with a million subscribers, or more, that you've may never heard of. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – besides the source of the BBC and Rolling Stones about starting the Harlem Shake, trivial like GAB has stated, there's nothing notable about his character besides the 'He has a million subscriber' status. WP:NRV – WP:BIO Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This YouTuber has done a number of different things besides the Harlem Shake. While his subscriber count does not inherently make him notable, his videos have become a part of modern-day pop culture. He has also worked with a number of other notable YouTubers, like JonTron, h3h3, etc. and has had panels at events like PAX. It only seems reasonable to keep this article. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in media, only reasonable reference is used on "this video compilation helped create the Harlem Shake Internet meme". Just not enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Filthy Frank Show is an internet series much like h3h3 Productions, JonTron and the Angry Video Game Nerd. Those three series are never up for deletion here on Wikipedia but one has to ask themselves: why? Those series are as notable or even less notable than Filthy Frank. One may also argue that having many subscribers on YouTube does make you notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page but it, in my opinion, does. In the modern world that we live a very watched and subscribed to YouTube channel is very much like a a high-rated television program. The channel is also notable in the traditional sense because albums, merchandise, and fan art have all been made in tribute to the channel's flagship show and is responsible for the creation of the Harlem Shake Internet meme, which is significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page because the meme was truly one of the largest pop-culture phenomenona of the 2010s. Due to this, this article should not be deleted and Wikipedia as a whole should consider changing its standards to what a notable person/show/etc is. --User:ZSJUSA

— Note to closing admin: ZSJUSA (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheHarry (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Frankly [haha], this is sort of WP:NOT#ESSAY (if this can be applied in AFD's); like other articles, other YouTubers are up for discussion at any time. As much as I like Frank as a YouTuber, he doesn't appear to have the sufficient criteria to pass either WP:BIO, WP:NRV, or WP:GNG for that matter because most sources about him are primary and the information about the Harlem Shake is trivial (which could easily be merged to the Harlem Shake article and is up for debate). In addition, many other YouTubers have merchandise and music and fan art, but that doesn't contribute to their notability (unless their music is notable of course). Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete I'm a fan of Filthy Frank and I don't believe he is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. The same goes for many other "YouTubers". Ghoul flesh talk 01:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Like others have pointed out, Miller is just as notable as other YouTubers with Internet shows that also have articles on Wikipedia. Miller has even collaborated with some other YouTubers that have articles on this site. He created an Internet sensation and is now famous in the present day. Perhaps his article shouldn't be as extensive as it is, listing a variety of characters that are on the show. It's a little ambitious. But I think the article should be kept. Legocityfan119 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources are all primary, there is not coverage of this person in reliable secondary sources to connote notability. MLA (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely as there's still none of the confidently better substance for his own article, note that these Keep votes are noticeably from fans. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Harlem Shake (meme), where he's already mentioned as an important figure to that subject. That's about where the coverage stops though. The article isn't egregious enough to necessitate deletion, and I don't think anyone would dispute that The Guardian, Rolling Stone, etc. covering him in relation to the Harlem Shake merits inclusion in that article (going with redirect rather than merge because he's already covered to the extent necessary in the target). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 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 merge to American Public Health Association. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Less clear between delete and merge. Going with merge, partly as a compromise, partly to comply with WP:ATD, and partly because it seems to make sense.

After the copyvio purging, there's not really much here to merge, but I guess at least some mention that it exists would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Spiegelman Award[edit]

Mortimer Spiegelman Award (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 reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Neither of the 2 sources in the article is reliable. The article was previously deprodded by Michael Hardy. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:7B:B5C0:498B:9B21 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I scarcely need to point out to any closing admin that "too short of an article" is not a valid argument for deletion in cases where we have more than content to establish context, as we do here. This isn't even a particularly short stub. I don't see much in the way of RS though. I'd suggest we redirect and merge to main article, which doesn't even seem to mention this award in American_Public_Health_Association#Awards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: WP:TOOSHORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -There are at least five other pages of people that mention receiving the award, I agree it should be selectively merged into the Awards section on the APHA page.Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Leave out the list of winners (WP:Undue), but the first sentence in the lead section and reference would easily fit into American_Public_Health_Association#Awards. I would create a sub-sub heading just for this award though as I don't think it fits into any of the ones already present. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'd never heard of either Spiegelman or this award before, but it seems to be a major professional honor. I've added 17 citations from the first three pages alone of a Google search: the sources are a roll-call of major U.S. research institutions. Both Pitt and the NCI call the award "prestigious". I strongly suspect that most or all the winners are already, or are likely to become, independently notable. Narky Blert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Narky Blert. Also ping CFCF, Bluerasberry, WhatamIdoing, DGG if they have got something to add here. Solomon7968 10:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. it's a junior award, for those under 40; and all sources are either notices of its award to specific people, or self-published. Neither show notability DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the Fields Medal also fits the "for those under 40" clause. Would you recommend its deletion too? Solomon7968 19:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as I've been watching this AfD and there's still nothing convincing of its own independent substance for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to American Public Health Association § Awards, which presently has no content about the topic at all. This will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. From what I've seen thus far, the topic has received some significant coverage, but it is typically from primary sources, such as this source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or, if not, then delete. Missing in the sea of promotional press releases about individual winners is any coverage independent of them and about the award as a whole (or about its winners collectively rather than individually) that could be used as evidence for its significance or notability. This is probably true of other articles here about other academic awards, but that's not a reason for keeping this one. So I don't see how to justify this as a separate article, but it can still be mentioned in the parent article about the organization. I do not agree with the relisting comment that the consensus is keep or merge; it seems more strongly delete or merge to me. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:American Public Health Association, which I believe should be a required step whenever a merge is proposed at an AfD; without this step, there is too great a likelihood that a local consensus for a merge formed within an AfD will conflict with a local consensus not to merge among the editors of the target article, and then what do you do? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Hx7 discovered, almost all of the article was directly copied from the source listed in the creation edit summary. I have removed those parts but too little is left to make a useful article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just found a major copyvio on the target merging article, American Public Health Association. I have actually requested RD1 but please check the rest of the article and please copy text into Google to see if they match with any websites, particularly apha.org. Hx7 20:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've found even more copyright violations at Mortimer Spiegelman Award. It appears to have been copied and pasted from this link. I'm going to have to go with a delete because I don't think it would be possible to rewrite the article without close paraphrasing of all the words in the lede. Hx7 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hx7, Suslindisambiguator added what you say copyvio within the ((blockquote)) template. So this seems a blockquote/copyright violation misunderstanding case. And @David Eppstein and SwisterTwister both of you are silent to what Narky Blert wrote that Both Pitt and the NCI call the award prestigious. And to DGG my query remains on whether you would vote to delete the Fields Medal too. Solomon7968 13:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:EINSTEIN. Some very few awards are so famous that even though they are a junior award, they are notable. Most are not. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 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 to Manipal University. Clear consensus here for not keeping as a standalone article, and implementing some flavor of WP:ATD. There's less clear consensus on the amount of material to merge, but it would certainly be less than everything that's here; I'll leave the details up to whoever performs the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Team Manipal Racing[edit]

Team Manipal Racing (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 university club, no matter how one looks at it. First Ghit is Facebook, no news, no coverage, no awards, etc. SPA created. MSJapan (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Merge to Manipal University - I actually do find some sources with our tools, which limits hits because I can only check English language sources. While these sources are light, the scope of the racing team makes me expect that reliable sources in other languages exist, just need to be found and included in the article. DeVerm (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

update: I just realized that the university does have an article so if not enough sources turn up then the article can be merged there instead of deleting it. DeVerm (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

update: with no Indian sources being offered this argument I used is fading, which reduces the basis for a separate article, so I favor a merge now. DeVerm (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Manipal University By all means, this is a student club. We don't keep separate articles on them. The information in the article is unsourced and I couldn't find any sources to verify all the technical details. Nothing to merge here and I would recommend a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Manipal University as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is nothing to merge here. A student club is usually never mentioned on the main article of the university. In addition, the content is unsourced. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you view Formula Manipal then? It's a circuit racing team instead of an off-road racing team, but also a student initiative from the same university. There are hundreds of universities that compete in these classes; I don't know if they have Wikipedia articles or not, but there may be hundreds of articles to be deleted when following your reasoning. Not that it would be wrong, I can't find the guidelines that state that university racing teams are not to have articles or even mention in other articles? DeVerm (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Manipal University, which presently has no mention of this topic. This will improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 11 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. Closure made based on policy-related arguments. The article passes WP:LISTN and a whole category of related topics exist. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game of Thrones directors[edit]

List of Game of Thrones directors (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 information in this trivial list is already adequately covered in List of Game of Thrones episodes. It was previously created and deleted in the form of List of directors of Game of Thrones. — TAnthony^Talk 14:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Useless article. BollyJeff | talk 14:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination and that's a recreation of a deleted article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless article, with information already covered elsewhere. Somethingwickedly (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OT: can be a category instead? -- Y not? 03:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the work of individual directors has been the subject of multiple independent RS'es. Saying the individual episode articles covers this ignores the fact that multiple directors have been responsible for multiple episodes, creating an overlap that cannot be adequately covered in either the directors' articles or the episodes' articles. The fact that this list is currently trivial is neither contested nor sufficient reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL): A better set of search parameters. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my nom, List of Game of Thrones episodes notes every episode and every director (plus other info), making this list completely redundant and inferior, and unnecessary.— TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you said that. But that list covers things from an episode-centric viewpoint, rather than a director-centric viewpoint. Enough RS'es are talking about the individual directors that there's room for both views of the material. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Other shows like The Simpsons, Doctor Who and Family Guy and so on have lists like this one. I think keep. But it could be improved. AffeL (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2016

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Category:Lists of directors by television series. Delete this and you must delete the rest. — Wyliepedia 12:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Variety, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly a useful, blue link populated list for one of the seminal American television series (an astounding 23 Emmy nominations in 2016... LINK. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monita Chatterjee[edit]

Monita Chatterjee (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)

Appears not to meet GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Her Scholar citations don't seem especially high over a long period of time, and the 40 or less cites are much more common than the earliest much higher ones. All GHits are primary (personal) material, and she does not seem to have won any prestigious awards or been inducted into any prestigious professional societies. I'm just not sure that in the absence of anything else, being the director of a lab with five staff members (and only one post-doc out of the other four, and all classified as "research assistants") quite makes the cut. Also created by an SPA with a likely COI, User:Auditoryprosthesis, whose only three edits were to make this article. MSJapan (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This female scientist has a GS h-index of 21, which just passes WP:Prof#C1 in the relatively high-cited field of BioMed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Reply @Xxanthippe: OK, so now that I've learned what the metrics actually mean, that's good. However, if she is indeed borderline, how do we deal with the caveat in Citation metrics that says GS h-index might be higher than true RS citations? It seems like it might make a difference here. MSJapan (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even though citation metrics are adequate (which are more supplemental than for establishing standalone notability), there doesn't appear to be anything notable in sources to write for this BLP. Being the director of a lab (i.e. most any research professor) does not pass the bar for academic notability at all. Everything else is extremely basic and non-notable biographic information. This person may be poised to get coverage in sources in the future, but right now there aren't any independent sources of any significant coverage beyond a directory listing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I've made some cleanups to the article, and added a keynote address she gave. I think that and the citations already listed by Xxanthippe are enough for notability through WP:PROF#C1. As well as notability we need verifiability, of course, and the sourcing we have is also weak (mostly her own cv), but that should be good enough for the factual claims of the article as long as we don't rely on it for anything evaluative. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative Note, this was reopened for further discussion by Edgar181 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on July 9. Thanks, Nakon 19:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – In terms of our notability criteria things seem to be not so far above borderline but I'll go for keep because we have quite a nice small article that seems to me to be an asset. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to what's mentioned above, I'll note she's one of only two authors on several of her most well-cited papers. Sometimes in the sciences a paper will have 20+ authors, diluting significance especially for those not in the first part of the list. That this really represents her work bolsters the worth of her h-index rating for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep as this seems enough to suggest convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure about WP:GNG as there don't seem to be a huge muber of sources available but this scientist passes WP:PROF#C1 and I think that this is, overall bordeline notable enough for it's own entry. Omni Flames (talk) 12:27, 12 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asra College Of Engineering & Technology[edit]

Asra College Of Engineering & Technology (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)

Suspected non-notable educational institution, possibly fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Hx7 15:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been improved by several editors and per the statement below, I'm withdrawing the AFD nomination. Hx7 14:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 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 by nom pbp 20:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cree-L Kofford[edit]

Cree-L Kofford (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)

Has not had independent sources for two years (Deseret News and Ensign not independent of the LDS church). No independent sources came up in a Google search. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octaviano Tenorio and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) #‎Leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other religious organizations, where consensus is forming that articles such as these must be subject to GNG rather than being deemed automatically notable pbp 14:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The handy Google Newspaper search tool shows that a 2001 Associated Press article about his time building the Mormon Church in Hong Kong was published in quite a few newspapers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is also discussed in a book called "Cree-L+Kofford"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj19tfchufNAhVH-GMKHSjKAwcQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Cree-L%20Kofford%22&f=false Contemporary Mormonism: Latter-day Saints in America, published by a respected company unaffiliated with the LDS church. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 9 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 19:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tapan Sinha (admiral)[edit]

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

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

The article may fail WP:GNG. No references found to verify the subjects notability. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:SOLDIER, flag officers are considered notable pretty much automatically, and he is a vice admiral[3] (not your garden variety rear admiral trash) and Director General Medical Services of the Indian Navy. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He's a Vice Admiral and is also the Director General Medical Services of the Indian Navy. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clealry passes notability guidelines for military personnel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an admiral per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because Vice Admirals are pretty much always considered notable as per WP:SOLDIER. Omni Flames (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 12 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Temptations of Satan[edit]

The Temptations of Satan (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)

Declined PROD: This film has not been the topic of any in-depth discussion in reliable sources. See https://books.google.de/books?id=ajXwxJuYd5gC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555 for example: not even the plot has been described in detail. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Neither of the two references do more than just mentioning it. Slashme (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lengthy coverage here to meet WP:GNG. I've added some sources too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep as a sourcable topic representative of the birth of early American cinema. We do not expect a 102-year-lost-films to have the coverage we might expect of something far more recent. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only source that has been found so far that isn't a catalog entry is the book that I listed that says that not even the plot of the movie can be discerned from the surviving "synopses" of the film, and vaguely speculates about what it might have been like. That shows that NFILM 1 (multiple full-length reviews) isn't satisfied, and to date, we don't have a second non-trivial article published about the film, so NFILM 2 isn't satisfied, and certainly none of NFILM 3-5 are satisfied. I've looked at the "find sources" links above, and they just serve to underscore the lack of coverage as far as I can tell. Also, at present, the article makes no claim of notability. --Slashme (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:IAR, and likely the first criterion of WP:NFO. This was a five-reeler, a feature, according to the American Silent Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Feature Films, 1913-1929 ref. It got a theatrical release. If movie reviews even existed in 1914, it would have received them. If not, well, back to IAR. For it is a cornerstone of WP:POLICY that "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." To insist upon deletion of a century old lost film by a notable filmmaker because it doesn't follow the 'letter of the law' goes against that good advice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because it was (and so is) a notable film. There is no need to invoke IAR because the notability guidelines themselves allow you to use common sense. Thincat (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that it's a notable film, but:

1. the article makes no claim of notability, and
2. it doesn't seem to have been covered at length in multiple reliable sources.

So I don't see the notability, and with the amount that is currently in the article, why not merge to Herbert_Blaché. It's a short article that doesn't even mention this film except as a note in his filmography, so redirecting The Temptations of Satan there will allow that article to have more substance. If his article becomes unwieldy and overgrown, sure, then it can be split out. --Slashme (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no article ever has to overtly state "this topic is notable because..." and while covered at length is fine, it is not a policy nor a guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is expecting an article to say "this topic is notable because…", but an article about a topic that doesn't say anything about it that makes the reader understand that it's notable, is a problem. For example, there is CSD A7 "This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". If you're writing about a topic that's important enough to include in Wikipedia but you don't mention what's so interesting or important about it, that's not helpful to the reader. --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think a merge there would be a good idea so thank you for suggesting it. With hindsight it's a pity you didn't go ahead and do that rather than come to AFD. Still, delete is not a suitable step on the way to a merge. Thincat (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To determine notability, we can use common sense and logic supported by guideline... one of which states it can be determined when a "film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema" and also when a "film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career". In 1914, the United States was only then growing into the film creating country it is now, so we have a historic notability per guidelines.. like it or not. And too, we can certainly and logically believe that a film by a notable filmmaker was reviewed and spoken of in 1914 media, without expecting that pre-World War 1 media will be somehow archived online for 102 years. Book refs are expected and quite satisfactory. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a unique achievement? No: it wasn't even this director's first feature-length film. Was it a major part of his career? I see no evidence of this. And I agree that we shouldn't get hung up over online sources if book sources exist, but I haven't seen anyone give a reference to another one, online or not. There's room to include the whole text of this article in the director's article, and the film isn't even mentioned there, so why not redirect and merge? --Slashme (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never found the 'explicit claim to notability' argument a compelling one, for that just comes down to semantics -- in my view. That said, Slashme is right that redirects are cheap and I'd have no objection to doing that, until such time if any when other material becomes available. Even the sole book ref states, rather amusingly, that little can be divined about this film from any existing descriptions, so the prospects for any growth here seem very limited, at this time. Neutral Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 10 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 to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchelsis[edit]

Kanchelsis (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 fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons). Currently mentioned there, and the article could presumably support some of the details about this deity. This may be slightly unorthodox; List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities is another possible target, but I can't see any reason that this deity requires its own article. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BOZ, not seeing any RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 9 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 keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.[edit]

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (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)

Publisher's notability is based on re-published press releases. For example, citation 6 in the WP article can be found on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.'s site. I could not find coverage in reliable sources, so this article fails WP:ORG. Delta13C (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Changed my mind, and it looks like WP:SNOW is happening here. Delta13C (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this article was sitting without any citations since 2013 and now the moment I start adding any type of citations, it is immediately nominated for deletion. There is something intrinsically wrong with that. However, I won't oppose whatever the community decides the fate of the article should be. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I've reverted the article to the state prior to the recent edits I've done ... all bad additions of press releases ... and I've transplanted the AfD notice back to this version, which has 0 citations, which is the state it had been in for years. This is the version which should be considered for deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I was switching out the citations with the press releases, when you upstreamed me. No problem. Delta13C (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was doing that as well, then just said 'what's the use ... nobody wants these in the absence of real citations'. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I've added two proper citations from historical versions of the article (one was an external link). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Mary Ann Liebert is a clearly notable publisher of several notable academic journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, check the journals listed on PubMed if there is question that Mary Ann Liebert is a publisher of many scholarly journals
  • AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
  • Astrobiology (journal)
  • DNA and Cell Biology
  • Journal of Women's Health

  etc. All of the journals in PubMed amount to lots of links. If you think this article needs more links, search for some or try to get somebody else to do it by adding "citations needed" --Ben Best:Talk 18:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We need sources talking about the publisher, not a list of what's been published. This would technically be a kind of WP:OR. There is no guideline for publishers, so WP:BASIC should apply. I do not think there are enough sources that pass it. Delta13C (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• side discussion which arose during this deletion discussion ... should have been put here rather than on the article's talk page, in my opinion. See Talk:Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.#Notability and tone. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• DGG (talk · contribs) will have useful feedback here I'm sure. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is an important though relatively minor scientific publisher. WP is best served if we keep information about publishers of material likely to be used in sourcing articles. This, like journals, is one ofthe fields where we sometimes have to make exceptions to the GNG in order to be realistic. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 12 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. Per WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kylie Maybury[edit]

Murder of Kylie Maybury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unremarkable unsolved murder. TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Murder was notable enough to be included in books and has continued to receive publicity for the past 32 years. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 14:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure why this is unremarkable when it has so often been remarked on. More than passing mentions too. Meets notability criteria. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very strange nomination. Clearly notable case. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Indeed, absolutely bzarre nomination. Either way, the case has had both persistent and lasting coverage and that = notability. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: this diff indicates he has a personal grudge against Murder of... articles. Speedy close of this AfD? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thank you Paul Benjamin Austin- perhaps my original edit was not so far off the mark after all... thought it seemed familiar. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's blatantly obvious he's got a grudge, if anyone was to look at his history of AfD-ing. Not to mention the lack of civility about it. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 14:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and snow close. Article is sourced and clearly meets WP:GNG. Bad faith AFD nominations are an anathema and a topic ban may be in order. MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Anthony Bradbury? _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why ask me? I am not involved. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well exactly. Disinterested rather than uninterested. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, can TheLongTone be disciplined for bad faith, lack of civility and use of the en-wikipedia to indulge his grudges and obsessions? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:43, 10 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  09:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aniyan Midhun[edit]

Aniyan Midhun (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 martial arts trainer does not meet WP:MANOTE. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's definitely nothing in the article to show notability as a martial artist. There does appear to be some coverage of him relating to Indian films, although much of it appears to be the same information repeated in different sources. At this time, I am withholding my vote pending evaluation of the sources given. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low-level martial arts figure who does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable martial artist and notability is not inherited from training some actors.Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable martial artist.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still not needed confident substance for his own actual article. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After looking at the sources more carefully, the coverage is focused on him training various Indian actors but notability is not inherited. I don't believe WP:GNG is met and, as I wrote earlier, there is nothing to show he's notable as a martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 21:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlin Bazovski Lobanov-Rostovsky[edit]

Pavlin Bazovski Lobanov-Rostovsky (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 references, no assertion of notability The Anome (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It would also clearly seem to be an vanity article from this guy, created by the "Russian Association." Notability is not inherited and this descendent has done absolutely nothing of note, it seems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability can literally be inherited in the case of nobility where being the head or heir of a former ruling dynasty gets enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG (e.g. Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon). Based on searches, this does not seem to be one of those cases. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article lacks any assertion of notability. It is also a total coatrack article. It is not about the supposed subject, but a rambling article about the role of the Russian nobility in the Russian Empire and then about the Russian emigre communities of the 20th-century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like a scam and coatrack. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from everything, there is a probable copyvio with this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:21, 11 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) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin La Croix[edit]

Justin La Croix (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)

Republican running for election in November against the Democrat incumbent, but not elected to anything yet, nor notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I can't even find any local press coverage of his candidacy online. OnionRing (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being an as-yet-unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — as always, if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to attain notability on the basis of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates for state legislatures are not notable. If he wins in Novembmer, La Croix will be notable, but he is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He can have an article if he wins in November. But I have rarely searched a candidate and found less press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 12 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 criterion G7. Any editor attempting to recreate the page would be well advised to make sure that the article is based on secondary sources well removed from the editor, publisher, and other related parties. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature's Cookbook[edit]

The Creature's Cookbook (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 with no secondary sources, does not meet any criteria of WP:BKCRIT. I can't find anything other than press releases online. McGeddon (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources exist and have been added to. The article has 4 references. It should not be deleted based upon this criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 09:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are primary sources (the book's website, the publisher's Facebook page, a press release). You can click the WP:GNG link to find out about secondary sources - all Wikipedia articles require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source has been added. a tertiary website covering the release of the book. When discussing a press release written by someone, the only source that exists is the press release in question. There are no secondary sources for the "plot" of the book, and that is in the book itself. There are no secondary sources for publishing data except that released by the publisher. So all secondary sources that can be added have been added.--Kristina Meister (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A blog entry posted by the author's agent is not "independent of the subject". Typical sources for a book article are defined as: "published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews" and explicitly not "media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book".

If Creature's Cookbook has not yet received any mainstream reviews or other press coverage, it is too early for it to have an article in Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while looking for sources to improve the article, I found a couple of sites identifying Kristina Meister as the author of this book ("Kristina Meister writing as the monster Simon Alkenmayer"). The article (and the now-deleted Simon Alkenmayer article) were previously claiming Alkenmayer to be the author and implying that he was a real person. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of the project. The citation that was added was added in error. But if you would like to continue editing the entry with a vendetta and bad information, we would all just rather you remove the article. But when I attempted to delete, you put it back up. So do as you please and delete the entry. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Meister (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that Simon Alkenmayer existed (just some jokey press releases describing him as a real-life "immortal monster who must eat humans to survive" who has a publishing deal), and two sources describing horror writer Kristina Meister as the author writing under a pseudonym. As the only other editor to have worked on this article, I've no objection to a speedy delete under WP:G7. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The original author has requested deletion on the grounds that the article was based on mistaken information. Peridon (talk) 19:01, 11 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  07:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMetaldave64[edit]

SuperMetaldave64 (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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Do note that most of the sources currently in the article are from unreliable sources. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I created this article, admittedly, and know little to nothing about the subject of video games. Are not Design & Trend, Christian Post, GoNintendo, and Tech Times reliable sources? Are they not indeed independent of the topic in question? They are somewhat passing mentions, in the respect that they are mentioned briefly in the articles, but the topic itself appears to be the cause of their discussion. I believe that an interview with Denis Dyack indeed makes the subject non-routine for a Youtuber. I'm not asking and stating these sarcastically either, this is my first deletion discussion, and I definitely want to become acclimated to the discussion environment here on Wikipedia. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards, you need third party sources about him, not third party sources citing him. If "Tech Times did a story about SuperMetalDave64, then that'd be valid. WP:VG/S has a list of sources to use and avoid. Pretty sure GoNintendo is one to avoid, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see!!! This has been quite edifying, thank you for clarifying this, the notability guidelines on Wikipedia are more linked to availible information in fully reputible sources. That makes perfect sense. Sergecross73, NinjaRobotPirate, and Tokyogirl79. I do know that SuperMetaldave was linked to some some high profile leaks in and around December of last year involving NEOGAF, there may be some interesting coverage in there somewhere. I am too now, however, leaning towards deletion. This is more of draft material, rather than actual article material. My bad, again, thank you for giving a bit more insight into the inner workings on this site. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He got mentioned in a few articles as a source, but there seems to be very little information about him. Wikipedia isn't a who's who catalog where you get rewarded with an article once you quoted by a few news articles. We would need in-depth coverage about the person himself, such as analysis of his skill as a journalist and reliability. I don't see that. One or two of the sources did look like maybe they would go that way, but they merely speculated on the reliability of his sources. If someone can point out something that I missed, I'd be willing to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A few reliable sources using the subject as a source for rumors is not on the path to meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything that's actually about this person. He exists as a person and as a YT personality, but this does not automatically make someone notable, nor does the amount of video views or followers. It's insanely difficult for YT (or other social media) personalities to pass notability guidelines and there are thousands of people with far higher follow counts that fail notability guidelines. Heck, PewDiePie's article was repeatedly deleted until 2013, long after his follow counts went into the millions. It's just that hard to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as still nothing at all minimally convincing for his own actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darius series bosses[edit]

List of Darius series bosses (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 minutiae of enemy details from a video game is outside our scope as an encyclopedia, especially when it has no secondary sources. I would have just redirected it to the series, as Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, but I don't see such a redirect being useful. czar 06:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although this list article has a "references" section, it is actually unreferenced, since the alleged references are spurious and are original research from the mind of the list creator. Unless reliable, independent sources discuss the wide range of these video games "bosses", we should not have an unreferenced list of them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mainly "how to" play the game. Who else would be interested? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE material. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:10, 9 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. Article passes neither subject specific guidelines nor GNG. Fenix down (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samy T.[edit]

Samy T. (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 tagged this for CSD#A7, but the tag was removed by the creator; so I'd rather avoid a revert-war by sending this here. The subject is a high-school football player, who does not remotely meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An unreferenced biography of a non-notable youth athlete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is a high school soccer player. He may well rise to being a notable soccer player, but he is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSOCCER. This is borderline A7-worthy, and merely playing in a high school-level football team doesn't make him notable. Omni Flames (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced BLP about a high school soccer player who fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NSPORTS, and WP:NSOCCER.Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:NHSPHSATH (WP:NCOLLATH does not apply here). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:18, 13 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 procedural close. Already at MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Connorsonian Islam[edit]

Draft:Connorsonian Islam (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Connorsonian Islam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fictional sect. Cotton2 (talk) 02:40, 9 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. There's a clear consensus that this doesn't belong here as a stand-alone article. If anyone (Carrite?) wants to use the material in writing an article about the school, I'll userfy the article; just ask on my talk page. Deor (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce Tigers Football[edit]

Commerce Tigers Football (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)

high school football team Fbdave (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Commerce, Georgia#Education. The notion that we ought to have an article about a small town high school football team when we have no article about the high school itself strikes me as . . . bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to America! Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:ORG and by analogy WP:NHSPHSATH. Cbl62 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reformat to Comerce High School (Commerce, Georgia). School outcomes say we keep all articles on high schools, so we need an article on this high school, so we just have to make this the football sub-section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we typically do not keep articles on high school football teams, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this wasn't utterly unsourced, one might make a sound argument for merger. Carrite (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Actually, it occurs to me that a simple name change to Commerce High School would make this keepable on that ground. I see JPL is on that already above. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change name to Commerce High School, with the above content a subsection. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator - If this is a Keep + Rename result, ping me after the close and I will start a basic article on the school. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect instead as there still would not be enough for its intended en actually convincing article; while there could an article for the high school since these are notable, this is the best path for now since none of the current contents are independently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that it is a good idea to have an article about the school, and if someone wants to write it, I approve. If someone wants to completely transform this article so that it is about the school, and move it, I will not object. But because this article is unsourced, I have a slight preference for deletion of this article and creation of a new one. I see nothing here worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point, but unsourced does not necessarily mean that the information is wrong and unsourceable. Southern High Schools are harder to source out than from other regions of the country due to bad replication of back files of newspapers, etc. via newspapers.com and so on, but there is no reason to think this school would be an insurmountable task. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bio of a living person and if the article were re-tooled to be about the high school (and include the football team), I have no objection. I can assume good faith that the high school exists, online sources can be found, and give time for the article to develop.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yes an article should be created on the school. This article has no bearing on that process. The majority of the article in question here is content that even if it could be properly sourced would be unencyclopedic either due to being out of guidelines or per WP:WEIGHT.John from Idegon (talk) 17:03, 18 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) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont White[edit]

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

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

Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON: I can find no evidence online that he ever played in a Vikings game or any other professional game. The rest is mostly unreferenced claims about a semi-pro career playing and coaching, and some referenced ones about him doing community sports work with young people. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still nothing convincing fr the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete head coach a at a Junior College (2-year), which typically does not meet notability threshholds. I do not see reason to pass WP:GNG or any other measure at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per WP:GRIDIRON, no reliable source that actually states he's ever played an actual prefessional game of football. Omni Flames (talk) 12:30, 12 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.