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) — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Lewis[edit]

Maria Lewis (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)

Unsanctioned profile with false and liable information Gretz2471 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, pending some explanation of what is "false and liable" about this article. Wikipedia articles are not "sanctioned".-gadfium 05:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It certainly needs to be edited for tone and sourcing, since parts of it are extremely promotional and it relies on things like Linkedin and an interview with what looks to be a dating game show. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Adequate third party coverage, does need cleanup, though. Montanabw^(talk) 07:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Considerable, non-trivial coverage in secondary sources in the article already. Google news also has plenty of hits for her [1]. And @Gretz2471:; what's this about "unsanctioned"? Nobody needs to sanction an article for it to exist. As to Libel, if there's something in the article that shouldn't be there, then remove it per WP:BLP. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:13, 30 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Kreso[edit]

Goran Kreso (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Appears to fail both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. (may well be notable very soon but not just yet). - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable footballer.DanversCarew (talk) 15:00, 30 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhaned Qasem[edit]

Muhaned Qasem (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)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:35, 28 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garakunta palem[edit]

Garakunta palem (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, prod removed. Still unsourced, no assertion of notability, and there are no sources that make it meet GNG, and existence is not notability. as maps alone are specifically excluded as sources that assert verifiability and not notability. MSJapan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator is completely wrong. Existence is notability when it comes to named populated places, per WP:GEOLAND. Keep until such time as this nomination is adapted in a way that conforms to policy for villages, towns, cities, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better. Well, it may be a foreign language issue, but I can't find anything authoritative to WP:Verify that this place exists. If anyone can, please chime in. I'll keep a watch on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, have you made any attempt to verify whether this place exists? It is unfair to reject my work on this without doing any of your own. ~Kvng (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tending towards keep: Kvng has provided a GMaps link on the article's talk page that shows this place at roughly 16°55′26″N 79°24′07″E / 16.924°N 79.402°E / 16.924; 79.402. While I have known inaccurate placename information to get into GMaps, satellite photographs certainly show a place with perhaps a hundred houses at these coordinates. While other Google searches seem fail on the name exactly as given in the article title, English transcriptions of such names usually give them as one word - and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) does give some sources, though none whose reliability I am quite sure enough about to give a definite keep !vote. This may be because of further spelling variants or names (in which case this should be kept, using the most common one) - or just because the place is fairly small (in which case, we might want to keep this, or prefer to mention it in an article on its immediate area). PWilkinson (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a census village, it could be a sub-village (for census purposes a small section of 20-50 houses that are contiguous to another area are clubbed together). See Pages 434 to 439 which lists all villages in Nidamanur mandal. —SpacemanSpiff 12:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While we don't know if it's a "census village", it is a distinct stand-alone population center. [2]. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. We know that it is not a census village.—SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. WP:V issues appear to have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it does pass WP:GEOLAND. This article will likely forever be short, but that's not a reason to delete. Sources in English are hard to find. If someone speaks Telugu, perhaps we can find some more definitive sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 30 June 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. No consensus appears to be forthcoming, there's arguments on both sides and relisting only emphasised that this is contentious. KaisaL (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Home Chef[edit]

Home Chef (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)

Only the most local of possible sources, of sources talking only about funding---which are theefore not discriminating. notability.The policy here is NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All the available sources seem like media placements by a decent PR agency, which are barely more useful than press releases. Lacking anything else, Delete. And as far as PERNOM, see WP:PEDANTIC. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have many links to the same article hosted on various websites. Could you please provide any evidence qualifying your opinion of the sources potentially being media placements by a public relations agency? My research verifies that they are not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage outside local sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Check out the sources I have provided below, which includes coverage in three states outside of Illinois (New York, Indiana, Minnesota). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I would've also considered PROD but I imagine that may have been removed as it commonly happens. There's simply nothing here at all for any applicable notability and searches would find the same. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Searches provided plenty of reliable source coverage to qualify notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. See the sources I have provided below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD. Several additional sources are available that are not based upon fundraising. Per WP:AUD, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" and "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary" (bold emphasis mine). The Chicago Tribune article below qualifies as a source that provides regional and statewide coverage. Per the Chicago Tribune Wikipedia article, it is the most-read daily newspaper of the Great Lakes region and Chicago metropolitan area. See the maps below for the geographic areas of these regions.

The The Times of Northwest Indiana is the "the second-largest newspaper in Indiana" that qualifies as regional coverage (see The Times of Northwest Indiana § Distribution) and possibly statewide coverage.

The company has received coverage in three states outside of Illinois, specifically in Indiana, the New York Observer and St. Paul Pioneer Press. Examples of bylined news articles are listed below. More sources also exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The articles not based on fundraising are straight promotion--just read the Chicago Tribune one for example. It's essentially an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bylined news article written by a staff writer for the Chicago Tribune. You have provided no evidence of this or any of the other articles supposedly being paid advertorials. Such evidence is unlikely to be found, because simply put, they are not. For example, notice how a Google search for the verbatim title of the Chicago Tribune article (here) only links to the Chicago Tribune article, and no others, so it's not a press release either. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That would still be a delete for now, the listed coverage is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that WP:CORPDEPTH states, " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The sources I provided above all provide significant coverage, provide coverage in three states outside of Illinois, and are not trivial or incidental coverage at all. "Not convincing" comes across as entirely subjective, rather than based upon Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep multiple reliable sources with significant coverage listed within discussion here, not limited to one local area. Gab4gab (talk) 11:47, 29 June 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 Rising Storm 2: Vietnam. MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antimatter Games[edit]

Antimatter Games (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)

Redirect was reverted. Fails WP:NCORP. A video game developer that has never released a game. Propose redirecting to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or deletion. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rising Storm 2: Vietnam or delete. I found a lot of trivial mentions, but the only thing that really covered them in any depth was [3] from Western Morning News, a local paper. If there were another story or two like this, maybe we could fill up the article with the trivial mentions and say it's close enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write a separate article. czar 23:12, 25 June 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. I have returned to this discussion a couple of times over the past day, and found this a particularly difficult AFD to close. There is certainly strong arguments both for and against keeping this article. Many of the against arguments hinge on WP:NOTINHERITED, and the for arguments on the sheer wealth of biographical source material. There is less question of whether Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. is notable for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia; Clearly, whether this article exists or not, the substantial article on Muhammad Ali should include information on him. There is a case for a merge, and I am happy to leave that to the admittedly torn editors on his talk page for the moment, rather than stipulating that myself. I cannot, quite, find an actionable consensus and as this has already been relisted twice, I do not feel we will find it. I hope my summarising comments sufficiently explain my decision to close in this way. KaisaL (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.[edit]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. (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)

Been the father of a famous person doesn't not make a person pass WP:GNG. An AFD 7 years ago was closed as merge but no one ever did so. It was suggested on the talk page to start a new AFD so here it is. Clay has no notability for himself. Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED Seasider91 (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there such as this. It is interesting to learn from this that Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a few paragraphs in relation to his son in a book about his son. It seems prominent enough material to go into Muhammad Ali, but it's not the significant independent coverage of a subject that we would expect for this article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - anything out there seems to be only due to his paternity.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Delete votes completely misinterpret WP:NOTINHERITED. The policy states that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (emphasis mine) and this is where most people hit the floor. However, if you read beyond the headline, it delivers a knockout: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". The article already includes more than enough coverage to justify WP:GNG - it should not even be a contest. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but none of the references (except for the short obit) is about senior. The others are essentially passing mentions. I don't think GNG is met.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I can accept that we might have different interpretation of what constitutes "passing mention" within the context of WP:GNG, rather than automatically ruling out anything that also covers his son. However, I would argue that the source User:Andrew Davidson provided is much more than a passing mention. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Just a note that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a guideline or policy. It's part of an essay. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. I'm OK with Merging or redirecting this article.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Muhammad Ali is/was an extremely notable person and just being the covered father of an extremely notable person should warrant a keep. However, STRONGLY support merge instead of delete if delete is the consensus. MB298 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria says that "just being the ... father of ... notable person" "warrants a keep"? Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I don't see the accomplishments or significant independent coverage to show notability. Remove everything related to his son and I don't think anyone would argue that he's notable on his own. I have no objections to the article being merged or redirected to Ali's, but I don't see the evidence that shows he should have his own article. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum, or Keep without prejudice to a merge discussion at the talk page  AfD is not for content disputes.  AfDs closed as merge or redirect do not bind the content experts at the talk page of the article.  There is not a hint of a case for a notability deletion, given the absolutely essential nature of this topic at the article for Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr..  A "wrong forum" result does not close this discussion, but moves it to the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. This is not a content dispute, it's about whether Ali's father is WP notable or not. That makes this the correct place to discuss this topic. Whether or not it's "essential" to the Ali article is both unproven and irrelevant to the determination of Clay Sr.'s notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of wp:notability only applies to the topic of the article, not the content of the article.  Deletions apply to both the topic and the content.  Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia, so the article content falls as a side effect.  The normal type of notability discussion that decides whether a topic's content should be stand alone or merged to a parent article is, as per our policy, handled on the talk page.  See WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion and WP:Insignificance. 

As for your assertion that:

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr.

has not been proven to be essentially related to

Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.

I offer that the proof occurs by inspection.

Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see the criteria that articles can only be deleted if "the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia"? Also, it might behoove you to read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that Clay, Sr. and Clay, Jr. were not related, I said that Ali's notability is irrelevant to Clay, Sr.'s notability. Each article's topic must show it is notable in its own right, otherwise it should be deleted, merged, or redirected. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven as you requested that deleting this topic from the encyclopedia would do irreparable damage to the encyclopedia.  As for your request for more information about Wikipedia's concept of wp:notability, I've provided cites above.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those links you mentioned and dont see where the topic can be deleted only if it's "not not used anyplace in the encyclopedia". Also, you have not proven anything--except perhaps to yourself. You certainly have not shown Wikipedia would suffer "irreparable damage" if this article was deleted. He's already mentioned in Ali's article, but I've seen nothing to show he deserves his own article.Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your last phrase, "deserves his own article", tells me you are confounding the normal standalone vs. merge/redirect notability; with the special case of WP:DEL8, deletion notability.  Are you are willing to argue that the term "Cassius Marcellus Clay, Sr." can be deleted from the parent article?  I assume not, so WP:DEL8 is out of scope.  Notes 3 and 4 at WP:Insignificance both cite policies.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that this is a content placement dispute rather than a notability question seems a little misdirecting. The claim "Deletion for notability is a special case in which the topic is not used anyplace in the encyclopedia" (which I've never heard of in my 12 years here) doesn't seem to hold up when parents of notable people are mentioned in their articles throughout the Wikipedia without the parents being notable enough to merit their own articles. The only question here is whether Sr. as a topic is notable or not. Of course, any reliably sourced Sr. topic content contributing to Jr.'s biography could go into Jr.'s article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this may be breaking news then: WP:N was changed in early 2008 so that it is no longer partly a content guideline.  Your rationale to delete before redirecting has as its purpose to prevent certain content edits to improve the encyclopedia, which is against policy.  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you would go into more detail with many of your declarations, as I have to say I can't make sense of them. 'Delete' because a topic isn't notable is normal here in the Wikipedia, and redirecting a non-notable parent to a child is also normal. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided detail at WP:Insignificance.  The redirecting of a non-notable parent to a child is a function of WP:Editing policy, so is a content decision.  WP:DEL8 is deletion policy, not WP:N.  AFD, or Articles for Deletion, is for community decisions that require admin tools, which a non-deletion redirect is not, although non-deletion redirect !votes have been accepted at AfD since 2009.  But AfD's closed as a content decision (no admin tools used) are not binding, partly because AfD volunteers are not superior editors who know more about content considerations than the content contributors, and partly because an AfD closure does not coerce an administrator into ongoing supervision of a content dispute.  A non-delete redirect discussion can be handled on the talk page of the article, and WP:Deletion policy specifically mentions WP:RFC as a possibility for content discussions such as this one.  The current AfD IMO should have been promptly closed by an administrator for, among other things, the claim that there was a WP:N issue without there also being a claim that the issues rise to a WP:DEL8/WP:DP issue.  WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add..."  WP:N states, "...deletion should be a last resort."  WP:Deletion policy says, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DP further says, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  .  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability. This is about existence of the article (i.e., should it even exist before it is redirected or merged). This is the correct venue to discuss existence of the article. That aspect can be enforced. If that is not resolved here, then it can switch to an action of bold redirecting/merging or an editor agreement (RfC if necessary) to decide that. Complicated wikilawyering seems to only distort these normal processes going on here. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You've cited no policies to rebut my quotes from policy.  My statements stand.  If you think that what I've stated above can be improved, then I invite you to write your own deletion-policy essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking a look at your first sentence, it says, "... if editors are !voting to delete, they are declaring that the subject is non-notable on its own and there's no way to improve the article so as to demonstrate notability."

(1) There is no Wikipedia requirement that articles demonstrate notability.  This appears to be a pre-2008 argument.

(2) There is a "way to improve the article" by redirecting it.

No one has been willing to argue that the topic can be removed from Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr., yet procedurally, you want to use the time of AfD volunteers to discuss this article at AfD for reasons that you haven't explained.  From the viewpoint of AfD, this is a minor decision which does not require the time of administrators, does not require general concern about which choices are made, is not urgent, and doesn't require that the decision sticks.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding references to "the article" in your response, WP:N is not about the article...again, as I said above, this changed in early 2008.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:N is not about deletion, rather it is WP:DEL8 that is deletion policy.  The fact that there are editors who have !voted "delete" without explaining how their WP:N !votes rise to the level of a WP:DEL8 argument does not overturn WP:Deletion policy.  A policy-based WP:DEL8 delete !vote both provides verifiable evidence that a topic is non-notable and evidence that the topic is insignificant (cannot be redirected).  In addition, there may also be verifiable content to preserve using WP:MAD.  Should a closing admin support our deletion policy?  Again, a Wikipedia policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  Do you support our policies and guidelines?  Sincerely, Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just as it did when I voted to delete in 2009. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali. Due to seemingly only minor coverage (usually fleeting mentions) in various articles/books about Ali, this subject doesn't pass WP:GNG, but outright deletion doesn't serve the Wikipedia. Some reliably sourced description of his father as it relates to Ali may merit inclusion in his article, so that may be thought of as a "merge". The NYT description of Sr. as "a handsome, mercurial, noisy, combative failed dreamer, [who] gave [Clay Jr./Ali] the gift of tongue" seems like useful contributing bio info for Ali. Deleting before redirecting would make it less convenient to revert back to a full article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are multiple sources discussing the subject, plus WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Emmanuel178 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I've seen are fleeting references or a few paragraphs at most discussing this subject in relation to his son. These sources are discussing this subject only because they are writing about his son. Are you seeing any sources covering this subject independently or otherwise in depth? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can somebody point me to some significant coverage of Clay Sr. that is independent of his son? Papaursa (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Muhammad Ali, as there's still nothing convincing for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Damn Keep The subject passes WP:BASIC as there's plenty of detailed biographical source material out there. Clay Senior had the slogan "I am the greatest" before his son. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline or policy. He is a noted subject in many movies as well. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You make claims, but present no supporting evidence. For example, what movies is he the subject of? People have been claiming to be the greatest for thousands of years, Clay was hardly the first. In fact, some have even been recognized by others as such. That's why the Russian czar was not "Peter the Pretty Good" and the Greek conqueror was not "Alexander the Above Average". Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Father is only known for his famous son. Any sources avaliable on him are in relation to Muhammad Ali. Unless there are some significant stand-alone accomplishments that somehow multiple respectable editors missed, this is a clear-cut case of a non-notable subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 2 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 Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use. A contentious topic but WP:NEO covers this and arguments for delete and redirect on both listings are most convincing. KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia-phobia[edit]

Islamophobia-phobia (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 to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEOLOGISM, particularly "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The term is covered extensively, not just "used", in multiple reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use and merge the reliably sourced content (which isn't much) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per meatsgains. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO, not seeing it as a likely search term so no need for redirect. Artw (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several citations define and discuss the concept and term. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. I don't think this will ever evolve into an article of much quality. There's much too little media coverage for it to be considered notable. What little information it has can easily be put into the criticism section of Islamophobia.Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 17:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Islamophobia#Criticism of term and use per above. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. Even if it had more coverage so as to be marginally notable, it's still better covered in what is effectively its parent article. It's possible there's a place to mention in the political correctness article, too? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Rhododendrites and WP:POVFORK, due to absence of secondary sources. Primary sources (opinion pieces) in HuffPo (partisan), New York Post (tabloid), Fox News (partisan; claims to have coined the term in 2016), and the New Humanist (good for a primary source, but insufficient) are not RS for the purposes of GNG. Secondary sources are required by WP:NEO as well; without them it's definitionally impossible to write an article satisfying WP:NPOV, which not okay because the topic is politicized. FourViolas (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect (preferably just delete) per above (WP:NEO/WP:GNG). The word itself appears to be used in a tongue-in-cheek manner in articles that are criticizing the concept of Islamophobia as a useless neologism. It's an intentionally silly term. A good hint that this isn't widely remarked upon: Piers Benn and Gutfield, writing three years apart, both appear to believe they've just coined a new term when they use it. Nblund (talk) 00:36, 29 June 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 Escape the Fate discography § Singles. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Situations[edit]

Situations (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 song. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Escape the Fate § Discography or Escape the Fate discography § Singles, which will serve as an improvement to one of those articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect as there are no signs at all this will actually be acceptable in the future, delete and redirect as it's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 1 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NewsCred[edit]

NewsCred (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 removed a majority of the worst contents but the remaining still make this questionable for solid notability. My searches at News have particularly found massive numbers of sources, but several are simply PR, blogs, news about its funding, "Companies to Watch in the Future" and such all suggesting this is still getting news mainly for its funding and is not yet notable. See particularly this and also the differences between versions here and here. Notifying DGG as he has a history of examining these articles especially when it comes to expected news for funding. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little but public relations dross. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. promotional . TheNYTimes article might hilp support an article on the ceo, but not on the company. `

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. Editorial concerns such as removing promotional language can be discussed on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh666 02:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alex and Ani[edit]

Alex and Ani (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 tried to clean up the promotionalism but there's nothing else there. the so -called references are fundamentally press releases DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - One of the most significant jewelry companies in the US, major and significant press coverage spanning many years, ranging from network news to major newspapers to fashion magazines. A simple Google News search shows dozens more recent RS. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for all the reasons Jeremy112233 mentioned. The article needs improving (and is appropriately tagged as such), but it's a legitimately notable entry.Innisfree987 (talk) 02:18, 1 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShinKen-Do[edit]

ShinKen-Do (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 an unarmed martial art evidently unrelated to the Japanese swordfighting sport Shinkendo, with no indication of notability per WP:GNG. There seem to be societies for this in a few countries, but there's no significant coverage of it online from WP:Reliable sources; only Gnews hit was this brief local press article about a club forming: [4]. Zero Gbooks hits. Proposed deletion contested by article creator with an incoherent edit summary. OnionRing (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator. Worth pointing out that the only two references given in the article have nothing directly to do with the subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The unrelated Japanese martial art Shinkendo was also deleted by AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo )but most of the searchs pull up the Japanese varient.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has no sources and there's no indication of notability. My search didn't turn up the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and there's nothing to show it meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 14:30, 28 June 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 Massachusetts General Hospital#Affiliated institutions. I will fix the capitalization first. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery research institute[edit]

Recovery research institute (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 full of references but they do not deal with the institute itself-- they're about the doctors and the research papers they have published. Other refs are self-published by Harvard or the associated hospital. An absence of good refs dealing with the subject means it fails WP:GNG. Article was created by a paid COI editor for promotional purposes. See confirmation here. COI editor also removed PROD.(Deletion issue is still notability, not COI.) See also the COIN discussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Massachusetts_General_Hospital#Affiliated_institutions and add a single sentence there about the founding of the Institute. I find no independent sources for it, and the entire second paragraph of the article cites non-independent sources for people, but not about the institute. What would remain in the article when that was removed would be two sentences and no independent sources. An article for the institute could be added later if sources arise. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Massachusetts_General_Hospital#Affiliated_institutions. I actually fully agree with LaMona but think it would be called a merge unless somebody edits the target before this AfD closes. DeVerm (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - This entity is closer to a lab than an "affiliated institution" as defined in the section in the MGH article. That section is talking about external things like the Harvard Teaching Hospital Network, not the internal centers in the hospital. WP:NOTPROMO, especially on a known paid COI. Salt to prevent recreation, because the COI editor has incentive to do so. MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the Institute is not a lab, we are actually completely separately funded through private & public donations and grants garnered by the director John F. Kelly (Endowed Harvard Medical School Professor) before starting up in 2012. Proof of that is if you go to the organizations homepage at recoveryanswers.org, you will not see Massachusetts General branding-guidelines enforced, because the institute is truly separate to operate individually, although affiliated. Also, it seems a little weird, (but I get it), that I am the "COI editor." Yes I work at the institute and make a salary, but the institute is non-profit, we do no active fundraising, and our work is all in public interest for public benefit to learn more about addiction through research (to try and help people!). So it is not like I went on Wikipedia to try to scam this entry up here to sell a product. I saw think tanks like the Rand Corporation and such have entries. I also am new to wikipedia and very much appreciate learning about the do's and don'ts of the process, and how it all works, so thank you everyone! - COI, but my name is Alexandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just looked up the word "salt"... we have not, and will not try to re-put up a page for the institute if the group consensus is that we should not have one. The group process will be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Gräupl[edit]

Edwin Gräupl (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)

According to a statement at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:EGportrait2016.jpg, User:Edwin41 is the subject, Edwin Gräupl.

Following an upload of an identical image, I ran a Checkuser on Commons and have determined that Ritamaria48, who began this article, is a puppet of Edwin41.

The two principal contributors to this article are its subject, User:Edwin41 and his puppet, User:Ritamaria48. The subject may or may not meet WP:EN's requirements for notability, but he certainly cannot write his own article as he has done here. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, at Talk:Edwin Gräupl, an IP confirms that User:Ritamaria48 is Edwin Gräupl's wife. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 17:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The page appears to be a copy & paste move from de:Benutzer:Edwin41/EdwinEnglish. The German Wikipedia sandbox was created by the 'husband account' while the English Wikipedia article was created using copy & paste by the 'wife account'. Some kind of attribution of the original source may be necessary if the page is kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• James, the article is rather neutrally worded. I don't believe the serious COI concerns alone are reason enough for deletion, if he is judged to be notable as an academic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable as an academic judged by GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as I examined his article and there's simply nothing else apart from the apparent honorary awards which are nothing for Wikipedia, WorldCat only shows 8 library holdings and there's simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google scholar finds five publications, some with one citation and some with zero, far below the standard for WP:PROF. And membership in an archaic religious club also doesn't confer notability. We can also consider the autobiography and sockpuppetry issues as reasons to delete, but why when there's so little other reason to keep? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable academic and educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Probable delete -- The Order of the Holy Sepulchre has 52 Lieutenancies, presumably one for each country. He was thus the leader of this order in Austria. If we had an article on the order in Austria and what it did, listing the successive Lieutenants, I might have voted to keep, but we do not. I suspect "professor" is being used in the American sense of lecturer. He then became an inspector, not chief inspector (or such like). Finally he self-published 5 books: it all looks NN to me. Is there any more in the German WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 28 June 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haridas Chaudhuri[edit]

Haridas Chaudhuri (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 good references since 2012. No referenced evidence of notability. I also removed a lot of essaylike hagiographical writing from the text. If this person is as notable as the article claims, we would expect clear evidence from verifiable third-party reliable sources to have been added some time in the past four years. If the high-quality references can be brought. this might be saveable. - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Cheers to those who dug up the prima facie notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Bibliography section of the article includes a link to a detailed biographical profile in the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. I see that as a strong claim to notability, which can be transformed to an inline reference in a matter of minutes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added three references, two of them to encyclopedias, and one to a publication by the University of Chicago. This individual is notable, it's just that no-one has put in the effort to put in citations. Perhaps a higher proportion of relevant reliable citations are offline for this type of topic, than for some other topics. But inclusion of biographical articles in multiple encyclopedias confirms clearly that the individual is notable. --Presearch (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:12, 25 June 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. KaisaL (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie vineyard[edit]

Vinnie vineyard (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)

OK, so there are multiple possible claims to notability, but I found none of them hold the water. A third-party unsuccessful political candidate to a state parliament is hardly worth mentioning; same for a DJ at local radio stations. The wrestling career falls short of WP:NBOX.

The real claim is probably WP:GNG based on the coverage in local newspapers, but I do not think it really qualifies. I found nothing that is not already in the article (though I probably missed one of the multiple aliases). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed -- none of the claims of notability stand up to scrutiny. Vineyard's wrestling career has not gone beyond regional venues, and the coverage provided all appears to be from his local hometown paper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!
• Keep -- Vineyard has more articles that are nationwide that pop up under "Funkmaster V". He has been in the national publication Pro Wrestling Illustrated multiple times, appeared in National Television in a starring role and has popped up under his musical exploits and on national Libertarian webpages.