< 4 June	6 June >

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. Given the back-and-forth arguments towards the bottom of this discussion, it's clear we're not going to get an agreement on what to do with this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States by date of death[edit]

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

Taking the article to AFD since a PROD was previously contested. The only detail actually worth noting (causes of death, dates died, years lived, and burials) is already included in the main bios. The rest is completely superfluous without introducing anything new of meaningful value. Best to just delete this listcruft. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excessive overuse of statistics that has no notable reason to exist (Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? There is no new notable content in this page to begin with, so the article itself has no good reason to exist Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little notable content at all, lists of most prolific months for a President of the USA to die in is hardly notable or encyclopedia. I tend to agree with your previous comment. (Ajf773 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

In that case, you probably meant to vote "delete" Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amended preference from Keep to Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs) (diff)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Useless trivia. We already have List of Presidents of the United States for general stats and List of Presidents of the United States who died in office for morbidity fans. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While most of what's in the "by date of death" list article is indeed trivial, the core information in it – time and cause of death, along with place of burial – is more than trivial, and not presently included in List of Presidents of the United States, or in List of Presidents of the United States by age. Also, there is a parallel article List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth. Drdpw (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is an article on dates of birth isn't exactly a good justification for keeping this one per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist. Also, as I previously stated, the non-trivial information is included within the main presidential bio pages, which is where they really belong. That basically makes this a needless regurgitation of such content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate forum. I don't need to make a "convincing argument". This is a forum for giving reasoned opinions, which you and I have both done. Cheers.Drdpw (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a debate forum, but AFD votes most certainly do need to make convincing arguments in order to prevail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some or much of this is deletable trivia, at its core is a table of unarguable functionality and merit, in an almanac sort of way. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, the non-trivial information is already in main bios, so this is needless repetition Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums, restating your reason for proposing deletion of this list does not make your argument more compelling. You need to demonstrate that this list article is not a valid topic for a stand alone list by pointing to specific WP policies or guidelines. If you could, please do so. That's what I'd like to read from you in this discussion. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to know which presidents died in which order then why should they have to wade through dozens of other articles to find out? One of the functions of an encyclopedia is to present information in various ways that readers will find useful. And please don't quote WP:USEFUL without reading and understanding it first. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like the "keep" reasons have been any more convincing. Anyway, this fails WP:Content forking#Redundant content forks since the only information actually noteworthy is already in main bios. It is not even worth merging into any other page at this point. If this on the other hand had meaningful data not present in other pages, though, my stance would be different. As for looking for dates of death on one page, they are already included in List of Presidents of the United States. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps at best as this could be its own article but I'm not seeing a large amount of likely searched and even then, someone could compile it themselves simply from the Presidents list. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list duplicates the information in List of Presidents of the United States. Some of the content seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH; the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem is largely not with the facts cited but rather with the non-standard/novel way of presenting/organising them. A lot of the factoids cited in the "Facts" section are arguably SYNTH/OR, since even though these coincidences are easily verifiable by anyone using basic reasoning, reliable sources generally don't consider these particular factoids notable enough to call attention to; trivia like that isn't really notable. SJK (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete. WP:REDUNDANTFORK is also not a strong argument. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that not liking something was enough reason; my point is that all the good content is just a rehash of other pages and doesn't have anything else new of value. Redundancy actually is a fair argument, and better than any reason given to keep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, redundancy is not a good argument. Pretty well all of our list articles are redundant to the individual articles about the elements of the list, and a rehash of their content, but presenting them as a list helps our readers, who are the important people here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really help when it introduces nothing new of value. Besides, there are lists spun off from parent articles (i.e. "List of accolades received by ______" pages) that go into noteworthy detail not mentioned in parent article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. if you want to be pedantic about it, my comment should have said "very many" rather than "pretty well all". The point still stands that those lists whose elements have their own articles are, by design, redundant to the articles about the elements, but present content in a way that serves some of our readers better. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the opposite of helpful for readers to have content forks bloated with indiscriminate trivia, though. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain excessive listings per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It would probably be better to just have a sortable column for "death" in the main list of presidents article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how about editing the list to remove the bloat or how about proposing a merge to List of Presidents of the United States or any of the other suggestions in WP:BEFORE? Why is deletion the only satisfactory resolution for you? ~Kvng (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the actually meaningful information is already in the bios and the main list of presidents article, therefore making a proposed merge pointless. It also is not a likely search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having the information in a separate list is a good idea for this particular extremely significant position. I wouldn't support such lists in general. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all when List of Presidents of the United States already tracks when they died and most of the detail here is indiscriminate trivia, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the detail do you consider to be indiscriminate trivia? I can't see anything that matches that description, but, if there is such detail that content can be removed from the article rather than the whole kaboodle being deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons that I have given above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything except for the causes of death, the dates of death, years lived, and burials. By no reasonable measure is this worth keeping when other pages already adequately cover the content truly worth noting. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, even if we are to accept the strange idea that reliably sourced places of death and burial of US presidents are "indiscriminate trivia", that's four things that are not such indiscriminate trivia, two of which don't appear in List of Presidents of the United States. Yes, there is obviously some content further down the article that might match that description, but that can simply be removed if it is not relevant without deleting the substantive part of the article. The content of your comment is a reason for keeping rather than deleting. Why don't you get out of your entrenched position and actually listen to what people are saying here rather than continually repeat arguments that have been refuted. This is supposed to be a discussion leading to consensus, not a battleground. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have misread my comment; I actually said death and burial are among the few non-trivial things. I also am in fact listening to what others are saying, and it just simply isn't convincing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't misread anything. You mentioned dates, not places. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not mentioning so more explicitly before, but place was also implied to be a non-trivial detail for burial. Place of death is something I actually forgot to mention at first. My bad there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with all the keep !vote reasons above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE may be instructive here. Don't bother if you can't back up with policy.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I made a couple edits yesterday to the article we're discussing here and have posted a brief summary on the talk page. cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (warning, sarcasm alert), when this article is kept, i look forward to seeing an article on "List of Presidents of Bolivia by date of death" followed by list articles of every country's leaders by date of death, and then lists of country's upper and lower house members, state governors, military leaders, sports people, entertainers and so on, heck we will probably need a wikiproject to managed the hundreds of articles that will be created! Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above's clear point. This article is a prime example of Systemic bias, it is so ridiculous the number of list pages for the US Presidents based on such spurious reasons, when other countries rate barely a mention in comparison. We may as well have a page for List of of US Presidents by date their mother last went shopping. Besides, the date of US presidents deaths are alrady covered elsewhere, as has been said above; this page is entirely unnecessary. If the users creating such pages put the same amount of effort they put into these pages (and defending these pages!) into other more neglected areas and projects in the Wikiverse, then we'd have a much more balanced and thoughtful situation.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this article won't magically make articles about neglected areas of Wikipedia spring into existence. I am not American, and see the systemic bias that means that there are many articles about Americans whose counterparts for other countries don't exist, but the way to address that is to create those articles about other countries, not to delete those about the US, whose president, like it or not, is the most powerful person in the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeahh, OTHER STUFF EXISTS is not a reason for keeping, and also bear in mind that Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. The President of the US is a notable subject, lots of pages listing every minute detail of their biographies, when they are well-mentioned elsewhere, are not.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you bring up those two pages when neither is relevant to anything that I said? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is brought up because you mentioned the existence of other pages (or lack thereof) with presumably similar natures, and that doesn't by itself justify keeping this or any of those. Inclusion was mentioned since merely having details on a page doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have the remarkable skill of reading Siegfried Nugent's mind, and, anyway, I didn't say anything that made either of those claims. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see a valid policy based argument put forward to delete this article. I find it encyclopedic, and the issues brought forward that do involve policy can be taken care of with cleanup in the form of sourcing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the policy WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says this site shouldn't contain excessive listings. This page is excessive not only for rehashing content from List of Presidents of the United States and presidential bios, but also for going into trivial details like those dying on the same day of year or at the same age without introducing any new meaningful content. Sourcing is entirely moot in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, this is a good policy reason for reducing the extraneous content on the page, and that is all. Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a perfectly valid policy reason for getting rid of lists when they introduce no new valuable content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thoughts from readers that pops into my head include: "What if the reader wants to compare two or more different deaths?" "What if the reader wants to know how old the oldest president lived to?" "What was the age the youngest president died?" ect... Lists are made to help with accessibility. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of that can already be found in the main list of presidents article since that includes death details, thus making this a pointless content fork that needlessly rehashes the content that is actually noteworthy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, where else is there a list showing date and time and cause of death - all in one table - of the Presidents of the United States? Drdpw (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main list can easily contain causes of death if it makes things any better. It already includes death dates and ages. Time of day is probably best for just bio pages. As I'm sure you know, the point is that we don't need an article solely dedicated to intricate details on death when the major aspects are already adequately addressed in other pages. There honestly is no good justification for keeping this page no matter what. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "cause of death" column could be added to the table at List of burial places of Presidents of the United States as well; but, why, when it's already part of the table here? Drdpw (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of columns that could be added to List of Presidents of the United States, but doing so would make that list pretty well unreadable, so we're better off having separate, readable, lists for different subsets of the possibilities. I must once again ask people commenting here to look at this from the point of view of readers who want to find information, who are the people we are supposed to be serving, rather than from a WP:WIKILAWYER's point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really better off with separate lists. Viewers would be able to gain information just fine from the main list if just adding a burial parameter and/or a cause of death parameter. One or two additions isn't a major concern. This also isn't a case of Wikilawyering; it is removing redundancy and excessive detail in places where it's not beneficial or needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1- I would be concerned if more columns were added to the List of PsOTUS. Doing so would make that list unwieldy.
2- Removing what you deem "redundancy and excessive detail" is not a compelling reason to delete this page. It is, however, as I stated up-thread, is a good policy reason for reducing the extraneous content on the page. Drdpw (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether more columns would make it "unwieldy" depends on how many additional columns are added. One or two definitely wouldn't hurt. Compelling or not, redundancy and excess detail are definitely better reasons for deleting than any of the reasons given for keeping. At least I'm not resorting to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL rationales. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read WP:ITSUSEFUL rather than just throw the phrase around you will see that it supports the argument that encyclopedic usefulness to readers is a good reason for keeping this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact read that, and it says to give reasons why something is or isn't useful, though was just making a general point that I'm not simply saying something is/is not useful without a rationale for why or why not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also implied that those on the other side of the issue are stating their position without providing a rationale, which is (w/a few exceptions) inaccurate. Drdpw (talk) 23:01, 11 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Rastner[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable sportsman. Quis separabit? 22:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - As an Olympic competitor clearly passes the WP:NOLYMPICS portion of WP:ATHLETE - Basement12 (T.C) 09:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Incomprehensible. Should not have been nominated. --Cavarrone 10:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep also since anyone at the Olympics is certainly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 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) 23:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayyali Space Foundation[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent coverage. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent evidence that organization exists. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Please note that the page being talk about is now located at Kayyali Space Foundation. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only given reference is primary. It was established in 2016 so maybe it's too soon? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved the AFD over to the correct title. I'll sort links momentarily, but the redirect should catch anything I miss. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And on the merits... I think Anarchyte has this one. There hasn't been enough coverage to indicate notability, and that's likely a function of the organization being new. WP:USUAL may apply, however - if the KSF really takes off, an article might be appropriate. For now, Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the page has some References, how much references wikipedia needs? Ang.din (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is that references have to be independent of the subject. Here we seem to have two press releases and a youtube video. Where are the news agencies talking about the foundation? If there are (non-english, perhaps) news articles that talk about the KSF, I've been unable to find them. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Organization founded in 2016 and no third source, still too early to consider encyclopedic.--Triquetra (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon, founded this year and simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with all the comments above: too soon, lack of independent source and in my opinion, nothing important to stay in an encyclopaedia (maybe after 10-20 years if this foundation will do something special, not now). --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)--Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 05:23, 10 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) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Eazy[edit]

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,, there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article , Secondly the references on this article are not reliable Samat lib (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon at best, there's nothing for any better signs of the needed notability, nothing to suggest an applicably better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no reliable sources. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject passing the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I was only able to find his rendition of Psy's "Gangnam Style", as well as information about his single "How?". Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:59, 10 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 Speedied as a hoax article. In addition to the nom's points, I see that that User:Hyllsberg, who created this article nearly four years ago, has no other contributions, which is always a bad sign in the case of a suspected hoax. User:Durham-man-lol, who edited the article within three minutes of its creation, likewise has no other contributions and also has "lol" in his username. Verified that there are no non-mirror Google hits to this title or anything similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Fenton[edit]

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

The village appears to be a long-lived hoax. No references can be found to support the existence of this village or the supposed "cheese wheeling" practice that originated there. Of the "famous residents" listed, the first two generate no Google hits (aside from this article and mirrors) in conjunction with "High Fenton," while the other two are known to be from other locations. Calamondin12 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seyi Sodimu[edit]

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

this article does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines , there is NO evidence of Notability on this article , Secondly the references are not reliable , NO evedence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject of this article passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of him, including 'Newswatch Times', City People Magazine, Nigerian Entertainment Today, Encomium magazine, Vanguard newspaper, and The Guardian Life. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per references cited by Versace1608 —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of the article, besides meeting the general notability requirements with current citations used, has also been well covered in multiple reliable sources highlighted above, some of which have not even been used in the article. What is really needed is more editing to improve the format. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:39, 6 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Blanck[edit]

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

Hagiography that relies on WP:PRIMARY sources. Major contributors have rather blatant conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Star pass of WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 40. Nominator is referred to WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently uncertain pending DGG's analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude. Make your own decisions. Waiting for someone else and then adding "me too, per someone else" contributes nothing useful to these discussions. Also, your other typical response, "no evidence of the applicable notability" is so un-specific that it gives the impression that you have just copied and pasted it without even finding out anything specific about the subject of the discussion. Make an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. We use consensus, not voting. If you don't have an opinion, you have no reason to act like you do. It contributes nothing. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think ST is using this wording merely to notify me of the discussion. I've asked him to, as I can no longer keep track of them all by myself. It doesn't mean we say the same thing--we do only a little more than half the time. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in this case because of holding a named professorship ata major research university, the Charles M. and Marion Kierscht Professor of Law at the University of Iowa. That all by itself is enough to meet WP:PROF. even were thee nothing else, and to judge the notability, there's no need to look further. But the hagiological aspects noted by the nom are real, --it 's the equivalent of promotionalism, and some degree of rewriting will be needed. I've just done it. It took only omitting the minor material. DGG ( talk ) 12:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not familiar enough with the citation patterns in law to tell for sure whether his Google scholar citations (for author:pd-blanck, with 5 papers cited more than 100 times each) are enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, but my guess is that they most likely are. Clearer is the double pass of #C6 for both the University Professor title and the earlier named professorship. And he has a recent award [1] that might not be enough for #C2 but is also contributory to notability. Article needs to be stubbed back to avoid close paraphrasing and copied text, but I think that can be done without the more drastic step of deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 12 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 Speedy Deleted (G4) by DGG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek H. Potts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article previously taken to AfD, which was shortcut because it got deleted for copyvio. The new article is much shorter and contains no copyvio (unless one regards the list of awards as such). Two references have been added, both of the same quality as the other 8. Re-creation of this article by yet another new editor, this time in only 2 edits. Previous AfD nom still stands: "Impeccably formatted article with lots of references created in just 4 edits by a new editor. Deceptively well-sourced. (Likely paid editing.) Minor award and limited coverage not above what can be expected of any lawyer. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO." Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 5 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) 23:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Creature[edit]

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

Advertorially toned article, relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources with no evidence of real media weighing in at all, of a newly formed band whose only discernible claim of notability is that it has one member who's also associated with another band whose notability is also hitched to primary and unreliable sources rather than media coverage — NMUSIC, however, requires a band to have two members who already had preexisting standalone notability before that can be the crux of a valid notability claim. As always, a band is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they exist -- real media coverage, supporting a claim which passes NMUSIC, must be present to support one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when more substance and sourcing can be brought to the table than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasoning of Bearcat. Currently this band only seems notable because a notable person started it; notability is not inherited. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's only the expected coverage so far, founded this year of course suggests it's too soon at best and there's nothing yet for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 9 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) 23:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gaard[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media, of a junior-level athlete and future Olympic hopeful. While he's accomplished enough already that an article could be kept if the RS coverage were there to support it, there's nothing here that gives him an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, if the sourcing is this weak. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually makes the Olympic team. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is on a college rower who if I understand what the article says correctly, it is not well written, has the goal of competing in the 2020 Olympics. If he actually does that he will be notable, at present he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means, simply nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tom29739 ^[talk] 00:59, 10 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) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Antoine[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a scholar and political candidate, whose strongest claim of notability is that he was the first African American to win a major political party's nomination in a district where the voters weren't majority African American. This is not a distinction that would get him over WP:NPOL in and of itself, so he would have to pass WP:GNG to get a Wikipedia article -- but all we have here for sourcing is an IMDb page and the primary source webpage of an organization with which he's directly affiliated (and the two "external links" are just repeats of the same two "references"), which means no evidence has been shown that he's the subject of any substantive reliable source coverage. And there's a probable conflict of interest here as well, as the article was first created by an WP:SPA with no prior edit history, and was subsequently edited by a user named "Klantoine". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 5 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) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable and failing WP:NPOL. Also borderline promotional with wording like "The strategic campaign of this political novice" AusLondonder (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidates are almost never notable for that. One has to parse this article closely. We don't even get told what the results of the general election were, but my guess is he was trounced. Also, we need to bear in mind he was not the first African-American candidate for a major party anywhere in a majority white district, back in 1992 Christopher Shays had won election as an African-American Republican in a majority white district, and there was a case in the 1990s, although maybe the next election after this one, where in a Georgia congressional district where a majority of residents were white, both major party candidates were black. He was instead the first major party black candidate in a majority white district in Mississippi, which only had 5 congressional districts, one of which was majority African-American, so that means he was the first major party candidate in one of 4 districts, in a state that had already on multiple occasions sent African-Americans to congress. To keep things in prespective, one current member of congress, John Conyers, when he was elected became only one of 4 African-Americans serving in congress simultaneously. On the other hand, the first African-American in congress, Hiram Revells was a senator from Mississippi, although if I remember correctly Mississippi may have been majority African-American in 1868 when Revells was sent to the senate. Basically the claim to fame is not notable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this says it all, not particularly solid for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 9 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) 23:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Rich[edit]

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

99% unsourced autobiography with no indication of notability per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. No significant coverage of her online from WP:RS. Won a beauty contest last year called "Mrs UK World" that I can find nothing about online, apart from their FB and website, and local press articles on the nominees, like the single reference cited. Article claims that she's in the running for Mrs. World, for which the article was deleted in January on grounds of notability: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs._World. OnionRing (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to clean the article up, but I could not find reliable sources to support the content aside from brief mentions in the local paper. This person competed in several non-notable pageants and nobody reliable noticed. As nominator states, coverage is mainly social media like Facebook. Nowhere even close to passing GNG or WP:NMODEL. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing redeeming. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her only claim to notability is winning a non-notalbe pageant, so it amounts to no claim at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've nominated also had I found this, nothing at all close to any applicable notability whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find coverage of her [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. However I find it strange that all coverage it restricted to "barkinganddagenhampost" which seems to be a local news source. I would have at least expected some coverage in any national British newspaper. Till such sources are found I think this should be deleted for failing WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right: Barking & Dagenham Post is a local weekly. OnionRing (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Unless winning Mrs UK World is default notable, we don't have anything more. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:55, 10 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Chung[edit]

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

Article is a promotional piece and most of the references are dead links. The few that are still active are in Chinese, and it is difficult to assess the reliability. Overall, I think this article does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Withdrawing due to article subject being notable but article requiring massive overhaul. Delta13C (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - All cites can be backed up via Wayback, The article overall is fine and there's quite a few sources on Google (Under her english name [8], Under her chinese name: [9]), I've not looked at any as have no knowledge of the Chinese language and the browser-translator is beyond hopeless but I'd imagine all are fine. –Davey2010^Talk 22:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable for being one of the few openly transgender Malaysians. In particular, it was her marriage to a man which made news (at least I can vouch for news headlines in Singapore/Malaysia) as it was uncommon at that time and not recognised by the government. The media has intermittently covered her over the years. See [10],[11] and [12]. The article is extremely promotional though and I will trim it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the lead could do with a modification. There is no mention about her marriage, which was the actual event for which she is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think the overly promotional tone of the article without much in-line citations made me suspicious. I think the article needs massive overhaul. Delta13C (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with that. The lead had no mention about her being transgender and the famous wedding. For a moment, I actually got confused if the article was about the same "Jessie Chung". Then I scrolled down and finally found the part about the wedding at the end. The article needs a major overhaul. I will try doing it soon. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. --Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 6 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. Previously established consensus for merge, but looking at the parent article, that's already done, so just delete this. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Democratic Party presidential debate, April 2016 in Brooklyn, New York[edit]

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

One of many debates with no lasting historical significance. Coverage is routine and, while there are multiple, independent sources, all of the sources are from the week of the event. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). TM 16:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a content fork of Democratic Party presidential debates and forums, 2016 where it should be covered. AusLondonder (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has already been found at Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016#RfC:_Single_article_or_split_each_debate to merge to the main article, so there is no need for this discussion. Reywas92^Talk 06:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly to suggest this can actually have any independent notability, could be mentioned elsewhere but still unlikely substantial. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 10 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. Deryck C. 17:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports arenas and stadiums in Mexico, the United States and Canada[edit]

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

Don't really see the point in combing these three countries to one huge list. There is already lists for stadiums and arenas for each league in the US and also Canada, the only country that doesn't is Mexico (correct me if I am wrong) but that a list of sorts can be easily split off from this article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't see any value in having this grouping, as the stand-alone lists exist. The other solution would be to delete out the US/Canada bits and rename it to List of sports arenas and stadiums in Mexico. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing to suggest anything acceptable with a specific list like this, can easily be compared side by side each of them at their own articles. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete what next? List of all stadiums in Asia? LibStar (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non-encyclopaedic list. - Yellow Dingo (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Gilbert[edit]

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

There do not exist enough independent sources to establish the requisite notability for this fringe BLP. jps (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of enough independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presently utterly deletable, but I've pinged fringe enthusiasts on my Facebook to see if there's anything of note about him - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Orion Mystery received quite a lot of attention, but his co-author Robert Bauval, who later teamed up with Graham Hancock, seems to receive the majority of the credit. IIRC there was some media interest following the BBC’s being found unfair to their pareidolic theories about the Pyramids in a documentry, which was reissued to include their rebuttal. All in all Gilbert must have sold a few million books, but of itself that doesn’t seem to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.—Odysseus1479 19:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He's published by Penguin who claim him as a best-seller. There should be sources on him ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: I don’t see him mentioned at all in pages about the BBC controversy, just Bauval & Hancock, so apologies for the ‘garden path’. His 2012-Mayan-apocalypse work has attracted lots of blogging & user-contributed reviews, but no RS that I can find so far. His website went offline around 2011; I browsed a bit through the last useful Wayback Machine capture in search of press links without finding any.—Odysseus 1479 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching JSTOR turns up one slightly promising lead, if anyone has a subscription to the Atlantic: a review of the January 2000 cover story (of which I can only see the title and tagline) briefly discusses his mention there, characterizing him as a “popular paranormalist”.^[1] Also found: one brief, dismissive review in The Furrow, brief mentions in Folklore (on the London Stone} and Isis (in a review of Ed Krupp}, and listings in Science’s “Books Received”. Cites for these minor mentions available on request, if anyone thinks they might be useful.—Odysseus 1479 23:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches have found nothing better and there's nothing else noticeably convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - he's someone there should be coverage of, but nobody's managed to find it and we really can't have a BLP without it - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haidar Hadi[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. Being an ambassador does not rise to the criteria for POLITICIAN and I do not believe any of his other accomplishments meet BIO. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced BLP. No inherent notability from being ambassador. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's noticeably been nothing better at all especially sourcing-wise and there's simply nothing for any solid independent notability aside from the ambassadorship, not to mention the article's noticeable troubles involving the apparent subject himself and not having fitting sources (basically his own websites). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 10 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. Noting that the Jessica Eppley article has already been speedy deleted by Iridescent per CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Siavon[edit]

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

Non-notable series of books. TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating a biog of the author;

Delete both. The only source used in these articles is the author's own web site. No independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The only 3rd party news source I can find that mentions Eppley or her series is here, where she is mentioned in passing in a sidebar as one of several authors attending an "Independent Bookstore Day" event. Both fail WP:GNG, the series fails WP:NBOOK, and Eppley herself fails WP:AUTHOR. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, neither meet WP:GNG, nothing found apart from book selling sites, looks like WP:PROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I can't find anything for either the books or their author to suggest that they pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both and I have speedied the author for now as there's clearly nothing at all even for any basic notability, by far nothing at all acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 10 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. J04n(talk page) 16:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Luck Hank[edit]

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

Can't find anything to suggest notability for these books. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Article was updated with numerous links and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9389:5500:E883:ACF8:A2DB:2B83 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://uparoundthecorner.blogspot.com/2014/08/interview-with-author-steven-campbell.html

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2016/02/interview-sci-fi-humor-author-hard-luck-hank-series/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9389:5500:F181:D103:FDBB:A7AB (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These reviews are not from adequate sources. Goodreads for the live of Mike.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews tend to be a bit questionable on here. I personally see them as a sign of notability since being interviewed by a RS like the dearly departed SF Signal is no small feat, however one interview isn't enough to keep an article and so far that's the strongest source I saw on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I'm removing the section about reception since it's solely sourced to random user reviews on various websites, none of which are selective about who posts reviews. Anyone can review there and as such, Wikipedia does not care about the user ratings on those sites unless said ratings have received coverage ala Saving Christmas or Bend, Not Break. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we should avoid linking to e-commerce sites in general since their primary goal is to sell you something, which can give off the impression of a potential bias. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating a biog of the author:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard Luck Hank. I can't see where these books have received any coverage outside of the SF Signal interview, which as stated above is not enough to assert notability in and of itself. It's extremely difficult for self-published series to gain enough coverage to warrant inclusion and for every WOOL there are thousands of non-notable books, however Wikipedia cannot and should not be expected to make up the difference. I'll do a separate search for the author, but offhand I'm expecting for his article to fail as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard Luck Hank. Per above, for every Pulp Fiction there are thousands of movies that cost $30,000 and yet they are still on Wikipedia. The series is from a professional author [per facebook]. Why do editors have an axe against books but let even the most obscure film or even short film pass even if the money and audience involved favors the novels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9389:5500:D36:A1D7:AC07:7265 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Steven Campbell (author). I can't find anything to suggest that Campbell is notable either. Sometimes authors can achieve independent notability even if their body of work fails NBOOK, but this isn't one of those cases. It looks like the only coverage he's received in RS has been the SF Signal interview. Everything else has been primary or in self-published sources like blogs and the like, not in any place that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. both the book series and the author. The books are self published, and worldcat shows only the first 3; only the first 2 have library holdings--in each case, 2 libraries. A person's claims to be a professional writer can not be supported merely by saying so on Facebook. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 12 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 Dolly Parton albums discography#Compilation albums. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just Because I'm a Woman (1976 album)[edit]

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

Non-notable musical release. While Dolly Parton is a notable artist, this re-packaging and re-release is not a notable issue. The title doesn't seem to have any notable, independent references providing any kind of meaningful, encyclopedic coverage. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolly Parton albums discography#Compilation albums Nothing more to really expand it on beyond minutia about RCA budget labels that doesn't belong in a Parton article. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the Redirect instead as if there's no actual notability, it's unlikely to keep this especially if there are no hopes of improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 12 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 as a week so far has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graham McCann[edit]

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

Reason

The text of this biographical stub is a single sentence. The sources given are a by-line for an obituary in the Guardian, and his own SPS website only. The entire article is a list of 5 biographies. The EL is IMDb. None of the individual books merit a Wikipedia article, and the mentions of him on Wikipedia make no basis for a claim of personal notability. The NYT has reviewed one and only one of his biographies, that on Woody Allen. A biography not even used as a source on Wikipedia. Amazon does list a few of his major works: "A Very Courageous Decision: The Inside Story of Yes Minister", and other books about entertainment series and entertainers, but no reason to thus assert a person about whom no biographical information is given is actually notable as a person. Sorry. Collect (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Try doing some basic research before PRODing or filing an AfD. As I mentioned on the talk page, I am going to spend five minutes doing some research to show the obvious notability. This AfD is, I'm afraid, ridiculous, and has been filed by someone who prodded on the basis of a NYT search, and an AfD search on the basis of an Amazon search. That's bloody poor. – SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spent well over an hour researching the person (well - trying to find anything at all about him as a person) - all I could find is that he is about 29 years old. Period. I did not list them all in the reasoning above, but if you like I can list them, but then we will have a wall of text documenting that the person is not actually notable as a person at all. And I looked at well over 30 sites, so I regret to inform you that your attack on me is quite ill-aimed. I have a strong reputation of !voting Keep on AfDs, by the way, participating in over 650 of them, and have rescued a fair number of articles over the years. Collect (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You spent over an hour searching and found nothing? I'm trying to look on a mobile on a patchy signal and with no access to my usual databases, but the following is a quick snapshot of McCann's professional notability established in just ten minutes. I've also seen him interviewed on cultural documentaries, but I'll have to dig the details of those out at a later date.

BBC

The Guardian

Search results articles about MCann's works, and an article by McCann

Referenced in academic works

This is not a very good AfD (it was a poor enough PROD, and I don't understand why the nominator was so impatient to file an AfD given my comment on the talk page, but there you do. As to "attack", I have done nothing of the sort. Your action was poor and that has been pointed out to you, including why it was poor. Not an attack by any stretch. – SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And information about the person? Collect (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you I have some information (which I need to check for reliability and other BLP hurdles, but that is secondary to the canon of his work. (I see that some reliably sourced info has been added though "McCann, a graduate of King's College, became a lecturer on social and political theory at Cambridge after completing his doctorate.[5][1][6]" – SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Reputable biographer of over a dozen notables, why pick on this, are you now going to take the McCann bio to the reliable sources board too? A great number of authors of biographies, even the most reputable ones often don't have an abundance of biographical information about them anyway. They become notable for the number of references in acadmeic works they have and their output.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies might be notable - but what can you tell me about the person? Biographies are, as I understand it, supposed to be about a person, but I might be wrong. And the person here is not an "academic writer" but one of "popular biographies" as far as I can tell. I point out the the sources given at the time of the AfD are not remotely near "reliable source" level - one is a source showing the person wrote an obit, the other is the person's own website. I would be pleased if this is actually made into a biography, but it still is short, and relies on the author's own website as two of its sources. Usually folks who are only "lecturers" are not considered "notable" under WP:SCHOLAR. No academic titles or awards, not noted in any academic field, not notable as expert on British political history (his nominal area of expertise), etc. I would be delighted if material relevant to being a biography were there, but it is not there right now at all. Collect (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." In other words, articles should not be deleted on the basis of the extant version at the time of nominating, but the notability of the individual and their public output. That is clearly the case here. – SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can one rationally edit a page where the information about the person (see the dictionary def of "biography") is simply not there? And adding "sources" which are not actual independent sources (a publisher blurb which is one provided by the author is no better than one provided by the author on his own site), and using the fact a person wrote an obit is not really helpful. And I would love for a real biography to be kept, but this one, ain't one. And he clearly fails to meet WP:SCHOLAR as a start. Care to try again? Again - I really much prefer to keep really notable persons - but this person as far as I can tell is not one. Collect (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time to stop BLUDGEONing now. In case it has passed you by, Wikipedia is work in progress and not all the information we would like is available. For the third time: I have some information about McCann, including the near-trivia of the date of birth (does it matter and who really cares about that one date). As before, I am not going to breach BLP by putting it in there without checking the source properly. In case you missed it, some info on McCann has been added, which provides some background about him. It's a shame you're being way too narrow-minded and overly-defensive on such a poor AfD, but each to their own, I guess. – SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "biography" has now been totally puffed up with details of his every work, or nearly so, and still with nothing of consequence about the actual person. Seems odd to me. Collect (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oh for crying out loud – it's a fucking work in progress, so stop being obstructive and petulant. Time for you to step away and being so disruptive. – SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be more biogaphical info, but that's the case for a lot of these biographer types. They're famed for their publications, which most other writers will write about, rather than them themselves, who are not as interesting as the subjects they write about. They're acceptable and help make the encyclopedia more resourceful than if they didn't exist it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources to establish notability. A subject may be known mainly for their works, like Homer, not that this guy is really like Homer. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm sure both are fond of do-nuts ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arguably the best known biographer of Cary Grant and many other actors. Quite a prolific author that can be found in many academic and journalistic results. I'd say he's at least a sufficiently notable biographer. Cheers, κατάσταση 03:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As SchroCat pointed out bang on, the article is a work in progress. Give it more time to develop, which it now significantly has. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 08:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems odd that this very newly created article needs to be swept out of Wikipedia when there are so many others which could be questioned for lack of notability. Samantha Chase this is just an example; it hasn't been touched in two years--some for longer. Don't understand the urgency to delete this when there are so many other stubs which have been here longer and have had nothing added to them in some time. We hope (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We were being a bit snobbish; he's a full-time writer who trained as an academic but has wound up a full-time writer in a popular culture field. I found enough stuff in JSTOR to establish that his work has been extensively reviewed, and he thus meets GNG, but in incorporating the material I've rather hijacked the article I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: the re-focussing is excellent and does nothing but strengthen the article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but noting the person is not notable for anything other than being listed as author of a number of "popular biographies", and does not meet any other notability criteria at all, including not meeting WP:SCHOLAR. As notable as people who wrote AD&D modules, or entertainment features for Buzzfeed. And also noting that the initial article proposed for AfD did, in fact, fail in the requirement to make any real claim for notability of the person. Several of the sources now used, alas, seem to fall into the marginal category of not making any real claim about the author at all. Collect (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim on keeping him because of his academic work, so SCHOLAR is something of a straw man here. As to your claims on AD&D or Buzzfeed, that really is rather pointless. His work has been praised, and it is because of that work that he is notable. as you've been told before (and hopefully it may sink in at some point) this article, like the project, is a work in progress, and as further details about the person come up they can be added to someone who is, through their work, notable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I'm sorry, I beat the bushes for articles with biographical information, but the man does have a right to privacy, and it's also possible that relevant articles are simply not online, or require subscriptions (The Times has notoriously gone paywalled; I'm sure there are others). The thing is, as you now recognize, he meets GNG. His work has been written about quite extensively. (I'll pass over the comparison to Buzzfeed and D&D writers except to note that he started out with a scholarly approach, and in fact I remember reading before about the novelty of his taking a scholarly approach with Monroe. But WP:SCHOLAR is inapplicable.) I've been looking for the guidance not to write a biography if biographical details can't be found, but instead found the reverse—the warnings against cobbling together a bio for a WP:BLP1E. That clearly does not apply here; we are doing no harm. I re-read the actual notability rules and yup, GNG still trumps everything. Unless our policies are ever rewritten to exclude articles on people that are inadequate as biographies, that means it's entirely appropriate for us to have an article on a person that is not in fact a biography, but is rather about who they are or what they have done. As someone says above, that applies to many academics; commonly the biographical details only become available to us after they die and obituaries are published. We also don't know much about the actual lives of many sportspeople from the era before modern journalism. But notable deeds are notable. We are an encyclopedia, not just a dictionary of biography. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, no. of book reviews cited in article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:53, 8 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian mining in Latin America and the Caribbean[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic text pile, unclear about what the article is dealing about.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reasons to delete DeVerm (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This definitely a notable topic with reliable sources for referencing. However, searching google with the opening sentences reveals that this article is a copy and paste job from copyrighted sources. Looking at the sentences of the whole article I am sure the whole thing is a copy right violation.--- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization and wording (especially the use of time constructs like "currently", "ongoing", etc.) need considerable work. However, this is a notable topic. Steve, this isn't a copy-paste job. The two sites that come up in the Google results (america.pink and revolvy.com) are both Wikipedia mirrors. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as certainly convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 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 Cripp's Cove. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seghy Island[edit]

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

Tiny offshore rock, with no indication of notability. Even calling it an "island" seems dubious. Nilf anion (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article's only ref, a Cornwall diving blog, identifies this small rock lying a few feet out from Logan Rock as "Seghy Rock." It is not an island and it is not a notable natural feature, per WP:GEOLAND. Amazing that it's been around since 2005. Perhaps we can simply ~~merge to Logan Rock~~, which does identify Seghy as a sea stack off the larger rock. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logan Rock. I also came up with no sources for the name "Seghy Island", only some dive reviews for Seggy Rock. I don't think there's anything worth merging, and it may be a better bet to delete this guy and make a new Seggy Rock redirect. "Pepper" @ 00:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes I was in the process of modifying my !vote. Yes, no one is ever going to search for "Seghy Island" so we could indeed delete as proposed. As for any other redirects required, they can be created as needed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Pepper and per Shawn in Montreal. We don't want Wikipedia to be creating the idea that there is an island of this name. --do ncr am 20:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable as per WP:GEOLAND and comments above...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cripp's Cove which is more specific than Logan Rock. Redirect rather than delete as there are a number of independant site which do mention it by name.[13] --Salix alba (talk): 22:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nothing actually suggesting own sufficiently improved article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cripp's Cove. Not independently notable, but a valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 12 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. Thank you to E.M.Gregory for the interesting hypotheses Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Ogle[edit]

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

This missionary doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article doesn't even specify when she lived. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this article has been on Wikipedia for years, so a Google search turns up mirror after mirror of this article, without finding any good independent sources about the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source we have is really just a passing mention in a work about the clearly notable Bakht Singh. Ogle is not claimed to have been a major influence on Bagkt Singh even there. We would need much better sources to have a well sourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ogle is the surname of multiple noble and genteel English families, including the a family of 19th century Baronets. Most English Daisys of that period were Margarets. Some Margaret connected to that family is likely to be "our" Lady Ogle, but her actual name is unlikely to have been Daisy, which (in that period) is almost certainly only a nickname. Hypothersis #1.) I wonder if "Lady" is a "courtesy" title given to a lady in India, a sort of corruption of honorific like Memsahib that might have been applied to a ladylike missionary, who may be one of the myriad Margarets the fecund Ogles produced. Hypothesis # 2.) is that this is a garbled version of Lady Ogle (Born Eliza Sophia Frances Roe) who married Sir Cholener Ogle, 3rd Baronet (son of Sir Charles Ogle, 2nd Baronet) in 1842 and by the 1850s was living as a widow at Withdeane Court, near Brighton, where she appears quite a lot in the historical record for doing things funding prayer books for missionaries in India, and for other activities unrelated to India or missions. She might support a page on her own. Hypothesis # 3.) The Lady Ogle who turns up in books about Bakht Singh in sentences like "A few days later a letter from Lady Ogle came inviting him to Silverdale at Coonoor for a time of rest as her guest." was the wife of one of the early 20th century Baronets Ogle (Who would have been called Sir , that is, by his given name , not called Sir Ogle - so would be a bit harder to find); or a Lady Margaret married a man named Ogle who served the Raj in some capacity, and she was universally called Lady Daisy Ogle and was supportive of Singh and perhaps of missionaries. Such a person might even have been widowed and stayed on in India as a missionary. However, My best guess, however (only a guess) is Hypothesis # 4.) That there was a missionary called Lady Daily Ogle, the "Lady" a sort of informal honorific and Daisy a nickname, who served in India and who accounts for this article but who is not notable, but that since searches for her name with keywords like "India" and "missionary" produce hits on at least 1 wife of a Baronet Ogle (1850s), and another Lady Daisy Ogle (early 20th century) it is difficult to find our Daisy. Delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability and there's nothing at all to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 12 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Aaron[edit]

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

No Secondary source to support the notability of the the singer. Primary sources like itunes, microsoft store, amazon, soundcloud, last.fm and some other video and music sharing sites are not enough to pass him WP:N. independentmusicawards.com source is asking for vote for him, searching on google news, I cant find a source for his awards winning. Mar11 (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tentatively - As I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources in my search, either, I guess it comes down to whether the Independent Music Award qualifies for WP:MUSBIO #8. I'm thinking it's pretty far from e.g. a Grammy. And that would make sense with the lack of sourcing -- the reason a Grammy is a shortcut to notability is because if you win a Grammy you're more or less guaranteed to have been written about in reliable sources (not so, it would seem for this award). Also doesn't help that the article was written by a blocked paid editor. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Independent Music Awards don't cut it for WP:MUSICBIO #8. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage to pass even WP:MUSBIO #1, and the "Independent Music Award" does not appear to be notable, either, so #8 is likely failed. I also presume he's not this guy. GAB^gab 20:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I noticed this earlier, by far nothing actually convincing here for a solidly better shown notable article. Delete until a better article is available, if ever. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 9 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. J04n(talk page) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navlipi[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable, essentially self-published phonetic script which has generated no independent outside coverage. The script itself hasn't bee published in any scholarly venues and the sources on the page are just reviews of the book associated with the script, not independent coverage/discussion of the script itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based only on the information currently in the article, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMEDIA or GNG. Maybe one could argue for Books criterion 1, subject of multiple reviews, but two positive reviews doesn't strike me as sufficient. I can't think of what other criteria might apply to a new script. Cnilep (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... if it did meet NBOOK then the article would have to be rewritten to be about the book rather than about the script. Personally I don't think it does, the reviews there are seem pretty non-significant (and I don't really agree with the NBOOKS criteria anyway, at least as applied to academic monographs, most of which get reviewed pretty much by default in one or two relevant journals but which probably would not be considered notable by any other criterion... but anyway that issue is a bit outside the scope of a single AFD I guess). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest the needed outside coverage for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be proven; if it is, it'll probably be in other language sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:52, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Panchal[edit]

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

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as shown by the referenced Deccan Chronicle seems to have had enough prominent roles to generate coverage for WP:BASIC to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 7 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. The keep argument is not supported by WP policy--his own publications do not by themselves give him notability for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irfa̅n Shahid Alig[edit]

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

Rather promotional piece about a non-notable economist who is allegedly known for Islamic banking. Can't find anything biographical on GBooks or GNews. I have checked every citation in the article, tagging the problematic ones; none of them give any substantial biographical coverage of the guy and some of the sources do not even mention his name. Please be aware that there is also someone called Irfan Shahîd (an orientalist), so be careful that you are dealing with the correct person when searching for notability. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources are found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as there are largely noticeable signs of no necessary sources and certainly no context to suggest any minimal notability, delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the virtue that his articles have been published on many sites (given in the article references) and given the editors that are writing about the subject, it is thus clear that the subject complies with the notability criteria of Wikipedia. The article just needs to be re-formatted according to Wikipedia's standards. --Nazeer (talk) 12:54, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U-Pack[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are providing lots of press releases, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as by far nothing at all to actually suggest the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth coverage. Tom29739 ^[talk] 19:04, 7 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 speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD A11: Made up by article creator or an associate, and no indication of importance/significance. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Vegetarian[edit]

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

WP:NEOLOGISM and probably WP:TOOSOON. No CSD rationales cover something like this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it as A11 (made up/discovered by page creator) as the username of the page creator is the same as the person named as having invented this term(two days ago). 331dot (talk) 08:09, 5 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. J04n(talk page) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Santing[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLPs of several people notable only as city councillors in a city not large enough to get its city councillors over WP:NPOL. These are all leftovers from a decade ago, when our notability rules for politicians were very different than they are now. In all six of these cases, the substance is purely local-interest and the sourcing is purely local-media, so no credible evidence has been shown that they qualify for "more notable than the norm" status — which is what it takes to get a city councillor over NPOL mk. 2016 if the city whose council they served on isn't a major metropolitan global city. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as I examined these and found nothing to suggest any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 16:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Bradfield[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. This source used in the article does not appear to be reliable per Wikipedia's standards, this source only provides four very short paragraphs, and additional sources found via various searches are only providing passing mentions and quotes by the subject (e.g. [14], [15]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businesman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all convincing of any minimal independent notability, nothing convincing of improving and salvaging. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 12 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. sufficient consensus. Even in 2005, I don't think we kept candidates as minor as this. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim McMillan (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for office. This is a holdover from 2005, when our notability standards for politicians were very different than they are now -- but the strongest thing here is that he was arrested for causing a minor disturbance during one of his election campaigns, and under the standards that apply today, that no longer constitutes a substantive reason why he would warrant permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected politicians are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I examined the article but found nothing particularly better, there's nothing for the applicable notability and there's then nothing else particularly better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 9 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. Consensus that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Andres Hincapie[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability ; basically an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur with DGG, nothing here at all convincing and the article hints at promotional, nothing at all to suggest this can be amply improved as needed. It seems I must've missed this review as it was reviewed by someone else at the time instead of me, but I would've certainly explored deletion sooner. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 05:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article supported by two passing mentions in El Tiempo and a link to the subject's Youtube channel. These confirm the subject as a man going about his business but I am seeing nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability. (If this article does survive, it will need editing attention to achieve English language conformity and to remove WP:PEACOCKery.) AllyD (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Puffery of a non-notable subject with no substantial, independent coverage. Spammity spam, wonderful spam. GAB^gab 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable plastic surgeon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 6 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. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Lovely[edit]

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

Still seems questionable at best because although she only has one major work as Hattie and my searches have found several news so far at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam, she's still questionable for her own solidly independently notable article and this would perhaps best redirected to Love Thy Neighbor after deleting, since this seems to the best known work. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person appears to clear WP:GNG, with 1, 2, 3. There is an additional source I cannot show here from the examiner that appears to be blacklisted, presumably because of some of their dubious practices vis-a-vis copyright; but I think it should count towards notability. These sources appear to mention her work beyond just "Love Thy Neighbor", and so I don't believe a redirect there would be appropriate. This might remain a stub for a while, but there's nothing wrong with that in principle. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as seems to have generated coverage for WP:BASIC to be met, the article can be improved with the use of the sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NACTOR with multiple roles in Tyler Perry works. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:55, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ontopic[edit]

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

Article about tv-program that lacks notability, with hosts that do not have their own English wiki-page. Article lacks third-party references (for which a banner was placed five years ago, at the day of creation, without any action being taken). It was created by a WP:SPA, and suffers from WP:O. On the other hand, it was a program on Dutch national tv, although I couldn't find any news-source that discussed it. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable as per rationable by @Jeff5102. Quis separabit? 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing at all for any applicable solid independent notability, it was only a local TV network show for a year so there's nothing imaginably outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hosts have nl-wiki pages nl:Arie_Boomsma and nl:Manuel Venderbos, however the article's nl:equivalent page is no better than this one. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even seem notable in Dutch. Not even curious about the "controversy surrounding Arie's personal life". — Wylie pedia 19:13, 10 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. A clear consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Saeedi[edit]

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

Third party political candidate with no claim to notability. I'm getting increasingly frustrated at the high amount of Greens candidates getting these promotional articles this election, and they seem to be removing speedy and PROD tags. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected political candidates are almost never notable for running for office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easy again. This was created through AfC, maybe we could talk to them about not accepting these kinds of articles. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above. Fails WP:NPOL. (On this subject of unelected candidates and their notability I fail to see why an unelected Liberal candidate in Jason Falinski was allowed to keep his article. Double standards? We even had the nom here and others arguing in favour of keeping Falinski in exactly the same circumstances) AusLondonder (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Falinski both has a good case for notability in his own right anyway and was guaranteed of election on top of that, making insisting on a fight to delete his article for the sheer point of doing it when you know for a fact you will have to recreate it in a month a waste of everybody's time. Saeedi, while I'm sure an admirable person, is not even remotely close to either of these things: there is no plausible claim to notability other than the candidacy and no chance she will be elected. This is not even a subtle distinction. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chair/president of a couple of political organisations or a staff member of a politician is not a "good case of notability". Furthermore, we are not in the business of predicting elections or arrogantly declaring people "guaranteed of election" or "no chance". WP:NPOV exists. Nothing in life, let alone politics, is guaranteed. AusLondonder (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by sources, and Falinski already had newspaper and book sources going back twenty years even if you specifically ignored the entirety of the media surrounding his candidacy (including references to his life beforehand). There are elected MPs with less sources than he had the day he nominated for preselection. As I said, I wouldn't have created it because people like you will invariably try to pick that fight and it's pointless either way, but insisting on fighting other editors to temporarily show-delete an article for four weeks to make a WP:POINT is a waste of everybody's time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as there's enough consensus here and nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 12 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 Ayia Napa. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WaterWorld Themed Waterpark (Ayia Napa)[edit]

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

References aren't reliable and don't verifiablly prove notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm finding some news but nothing particularly convincing and that's not surprising since it's only a local amusement park. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: There's evidence of some level of industry notability, but coverage is thin enough that Merge and Redirect to Ayia Napa is probably more warranted than a Weak Keep. In addition to various travel book blurbs:

World Waterpark Association 1998 Innovation Award
Guardian - top 10 waterparks in Europe
CNN - One of the 12 best waterparks in the world
in 2001 had the biggest wave pool in Europe
Famagusta Gazette (local) - most famous tourist attraction on the island and indications of awards
Cyprus News Agency: European Waterpark Association meeting

As a counterpoint -- can anyone find the AFD or original page referred to in the Independent blackmail story? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:16, 5 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. I am exceptionally closing this early, after only a bit more than a day, because a quite exceptional number of comments have already been made, and they indicate a clear consensus at this time to cover the case and the discussion about it in an article. The automatic head-count is at 56 "keep" to 10 "delete", with a trend towards keep. Although this process is not a vote, these numbers do make clear that a consensus to delete will not emerge from this discussion.

There is also a trend towards consensus to focus the article on the event instead of on the perpetrator, and currently the article has already been moved to Brock Turner sentencing controversy, but that is a matter for further discussion on the article talk page.

This "snow" keep closure does not rule out another deletion nomination at a later time when the article has stabilized and the news coverage has subsided such that the topic's importance can be examined at more of a distance, but any such renomination should be well considered in view of the discussion below. Sandstein 19:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Turner[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

The subject of this article fails notability guidelines and strains Wikipedia's neutrality stance and determination not to be viewed as a source for news and current events. The article's subject is known in reliable sources for a single event; his arrest and conviction for sexual assault charges. As the key player in a low profile event, (no article exists for the event itself), this person does not warrant a stand alone article in Wikipedia. --castabile (User talk:castabile) --Castabile (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ongoing criminal matter, you are innocent until proven otherwise. 70.178.54.15 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this *vote must be ignored, as the argument is entirely incorrect. this is not an ongoing criminal matter. the person has been found guilty. there is no rationale to protect the perp based on presumed innocence. i will point out that an argument to not unfairly publicize, and thus overly emphasize, the perp is in some cases a valid form of argument (which i dont believe applies here). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. An earlier poster notes correctly that "Enough coverage transforms routine news into history." He has become the face of slap-on-the-wrist sentencing for acquaintance rape and thus is at this point notable. --50.162.3.154 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There is literally no reason to delete this. The fact that I came to this page by searching "Brock Turner Wikipedia" shows that it is a very relevant page. This is a historic case that has a lot to it. The point of wikipedia, among other things, is to have all the info in one place rather than trying to track down a bunch of random details all over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.96.222 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This entry is not merely about news and current events. It is, as others have pointed out below, a landmark case in the history of policy-making around campus sexual assault, especially insofar as conviction and sentencing are concerned. (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with the above opinion for two reasons. First, the inclusion of the subject is in no way a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality stance. The basic facts of the event in question are not in dispute, and have been conclusively settled in the American legal system. While the subject might not appreciate the fact that this episode is documented on Wikipedia, that unhappiness is irrelevant to the question of neutrality.

The second reason that I disagree is that campus rape--as well as the role of alcohol--is a major topic in the campus culture of the American university in the early 21st century. For this reason, this episode is worthy of documenting on Wikipedia for precisely the same reason that Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) is. This is also true of the mention of Owen Labrie on the entry for St. Paul's School. All of these articles and mentions document this important social issue affecting colleges and universities across the country.

All of this said, I do agree that the article needs two improvements: First, Turner's side of the story--that he thought it was just some drunk hookup--should be provided. Second, framing information, similar to what I wrote in the previous paragraph, needs to be added to provide context making clear why this article is not just newsy ephemera, but worthy of documenting for the longer-term record. But these suggestions boil down to "mend it, don't end it." Thebigpug (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Whenever policy is set aside to allow undue coverage of a single event within the biography of a living person who is otherwise a low profile individual, that coverage is inherently biased. A neutral presentation would exist if the information was duly placed within a related article; as was done regarding Owen Labrie's mention in the St. Paul's School article. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - User: Thebigpug says "For this reason, this episode is worthy of documenting on Wikipedia for precisely the same reason that Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) is." The referred-to article says "The student Sulkowicz accused was found 'not responsible' in 2013 by a university inquiry into the allegations." Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The history of his actions should be documented in as many ways as possible, to ensure they are accessible to anyone who wishes to research this person's behaviour in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.185 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Campus sexual assault is a significant and important aspect of both tertiary education and criminal justice, and this case is a rare example of where a perpetrator was not only charged, but convicted in a court of law. The article as written does not strain the neutrality guidelines, as it relates only well sourced, verifiable material and those events of the case which have been tested in a court of law. Unlike the commenter above, I do not think that unverified he said / she said versions of events should be included, as that would push the limits of neutrality of a living person article. Cwmagee (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This article is significant not just for the rape itself, but--perhaps even more so--for the miscarriage of justice that followed. That makes this in no way "a low profile event".

This article does not fail notability guidelines, which state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The sources to date include San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, the Guardian, and ESPN.com, which clearly meet the requirement. Those are the sources of news, so Wikipedia doesn't need to be. - Johnlogic (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CRIMINAL is the most relevant notability guideline here. An individual who has received significant news coverage of their arrest and sentencing may still not meet WP:CRIMINAL. --McGeddon (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This case may be problematic under WP:CRIMINAL, but it's important to note that the victim's lengthy in-court statement has now gone "viral" [16] and has been covered in detail in important sources like The Washington Post [17] and The Guardian [18]. At this point, I don't know that the event can be accurately characterized as "low profile". --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - a straightforward failure of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BIO1E. His case is notable for the symbolic value of his victim's letter, which "went viral" because many people and sexual assault victims felt it spoke for them, than for his specific crime. I think this would be better placed on campus sexual assault with a description of the events. He doesn't himself pass WP:CRIMINAL. His case has attracted attention not so much because his actions were "unusual—or ha[ve] otherwise been considered noteworthy" than because they were felt to be an example of of such assaults in general; not because his actions were unusual as they were felt to be all too common. Blythwood (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Brock Turner is a notable public figure, who has been covered in American national media and International media, and is well known both for his activities as a swimmer and a rapist. Strand (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Considering the wide dissemination of the victim's in-court statement and the controversy surrounding his extremely light sentence, this page is likely to be referenced more and more as the case is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.116.130 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The intention of this article does not appear be the harassment of Mr. Turner, but to provide the public with information about an individual who's name is becoming well known in international media [19]. This article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.79.30 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that a lot of editors don't like this guy (with good reason) and want to keep the page because it will harm him and his reputation. I don't think that's a good justification. This is a single incident (the rape) that generated significant media coverage, especially because of the statements made by parties in the case. I think that the article should be kept because it is a notable incident, but I wish that this standard would be applied in all AfD discussions, not just ones where editors don't like the subject. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. A non-notable individual who committed a crime has no encyclopedic value.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total violation of not news rules. He was not noted as a swimmer. He only got notice for being charged with rape, but no really reason that we should have an article on him and not every other convicted rapist whose name was published in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it could be renamed to be specific to the case which seems to have received a fair bit of press some of it international (Independent, Daily Mail, Guardian) since the time of event to now. Erp (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.77.214 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This crime is notable and this article should serve as a documentation of his crimes.Cssiitcic (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The crime, is perhaps one of many examples of campus assault, but the judge's sentence and the survivor's letter, published in many media outlets, make it notable. This case will be referred to often in the future for these reasons and people will expect to find it on Wikipedia.Intheshadows (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. In response to the comment that "no article exists for the event itself", it should be noted that this crime has become notable now as the victim's court statement is published and sentencing concluded. The lack of an existing article is not a good indicator of notability. If such an article was created it would essentially duplicate the content of this one. The notion that this is a "low profile" incident is unsupported, it seems likely that the victim's powerful statement and controversy over lenient sentencing will ensure long term interest in the subject. RussHawk (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I am writing this from Australia - this event has been worldwide news and has sparked numerous articles and calls for changing the way society views rape, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.158.11 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The information is true and accurate. Mr Turner is an athlete who has committed a criminal act, both of which are wiki guidelines for keeping an article. It is not reported as a news article, but is an accurate description of a person who has recently gained fame for committing a criminal act. 'Brock Turner' is becoming a popular search term due to the publicity around the case and the victim's popular impact statement letter. It is rightfully wikipedia's place to inform users on who this famous person is and for what he is famous for. The article follows all guidelines for wiki to keep it and I see no reason why it should be deleted. Anchor228 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think any of those advocating for keep have referenced wikipedia guidelines, only that Turner is a bad guy and that campus rape is too common. True as both statements may be, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and loads of "notable" people and events are rejected from inclusion every day. I've put hard work into articles that have been deleted, and it sucks, but it's necessary. Stroller (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Brock Turner is a notable public figure, who has been covered in American national media and International media, and is well known both for his activities as a swimmer and a rapist. He will continue to occupy a place in the conversation about rape on campus and their intersection with athletic politics. It is vital that his entry remains and enlarged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierstenmounce (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIMINAL. As far as I know, there aren't any other articles about the victim's rape. Also, this is a crime that shouldn't be whitewashed, papered over, or shoved under the rug. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Brock Turner's actions have received ongoing, worldwide, contextualizing coverage from a diverse array of sources. The guidelines say that media coverage can confer notability on a criminal act, so long as it otherwise satisfies notability and reliability guidelines. It is clear, based on the scope and content of the coverage that this individual has received, that those conditions are amply satisfied. Cryptobiotik (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Given the impact this story seems to have had worldwide including the statement from his father, I believe this incident has had more of an impact on the discussion of campus rape and the perceived nonchalant attitudes of some males towards sexual assault. Coupled with his background and success in swimming, he has a public image albeit a small one which in my opinion qualifies this article to be valid. The article itself does not seem biased at this time and presents the facts as they have been presented in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.28.220 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. All information is clearly factual and unbiased in that it reflects the facts of a trial in a court of law. Regarding the argument that the biographical information relates to a "low profile individual", which is not true. 1) The conviction of Brock Allen Turner represents a significant milestone in respect of sexual assault on college campuses given that he was tried AND convicted of such felony crimes. 2) The notoriety of the case itself in respect of this milestone judgement (and worldwide attention matters surrounding the case) highlight that the felon Brock Allen Turner is not and cannot be purported to be a "low profile individual". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonerInHongKong (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Merge to Campus Sexual Assault. Delete if unable to merge. WP:CRIME is very clear on this:

"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."
"Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:"
"For perpetrators: 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
1.The victim was not notable. 2.The motivation and execution is neither notable or unusual. "Rapist takes advantage of unconcious" is not special in any way. It is unfortunately all too common. The father's ridiculous comments aside, there is no evidence of any historic significance at this time. WP:BIO1E lays out the notability requirements and I cannot see this subject qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A brief summary of some of the keep votes above not versed in policy: "His actions should be documented so his behaviour can be researched in the future" - wikipedia is not a criminal record, "Brock Turner is a notable public figure" - not until this event he wasnt, "to provide the public with information about an individual who's name is becoming well known in international media" - merely being well-known is not a reason to keep under BLP1E, BIO1E, WP:CRIME etc. "This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence." - well no explanation needed. "This crime is notable and this article should serve as a documentation of his crimes" - individual college/university rapes are not in themselves notable with a few exceptions, again wikipedia is not here to be a public criminal record. "The information is true and accurate." - not itself reason to keep an article per *any* notability guideline.
The best arguments to keep are actually arguments to retitle and rescope the article - Londonerinhongkong states "The conviction of Brock Allen Turner represents a significant milestone in respect of sexual assault on college campuses given that he was tried AND convicted of such felony crimes. 2) The notoriety of the case itself in respect of this milestone judgement (and worldwide attention matters surrounding the case)" - this is a good argument for having an article on the court case with obviously inclusive details of the perpetrator. This is actually the usual format when a specific case becomes notable due to setting precedent etc. Intheshadows also writes "The crime, is perhaps one of many examples of campus assault, but the judge's sentence and the survivor's letter, published in many media outlets, make it notable. This case will be referred to often in the future for these reasons and people will expect to find it on Wikipedia" - again this is a good argument for having an article on the case, not the perpetrator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per WP:CRIMINAL, to an article about the case, including the sentencing and the controversy over "Emily Doe's" statement. Yakushima (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very clear fact is that the article was added in response to the criminal case. It was not added because of any other subject notability. Wikipedia is not a public forum for shaming. I don't care how bad someone is, electronically lynching a common but otherwise non-noteworthy criminal, who happens to be a momentary minor media obsession, is not what Wikipedia is about. -Jordgette [talk] 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: this case is making international news and goes beyond the crime itself due to the discourses evident in the case for the defense, and now the letter from his father, which demonstrates astonishing entitlement, and issues of privilege, race and gendered violence. The strong statement by his victim already has worldwide attention and has huge significance in terms of self-advocacy and refusal to allow assumed entitlement to continue. I do not want to see wiki become a list of convicted felons. This case goes far beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowyswimmy (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Campus Sexual Assault, as per Only in death's rationale. If that's not an option, then Redirect and refocus the article to cover the case as a whole, not just Turner. If that fails, too, then Delete. I strongly disagree with the many "Keeps" above (along the lines of "This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence. This is a disgrace"), because "Wikipedia is not a public forum for shaming." Many of the arguments lack grounding in actual policy, and some violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. As noted above, WP:CRIME basically precludes the possibility of keeping the article as is, and we can't say now whether this will ever become a " well-documented historic event." That would require more CRYSTALBALL. I am about 95% sure that a concerted canvassing effort/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is going on here, but I won't waste time investigating that, and I'm confident the closing admin will realize this, too. GAB^gab 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Turner is internationally (in)famous, and fully satisfied WP:N as an All-American swimmer even before his current notoriety. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates Low Profile individual policies on Wikipedia. WP:BLP1E. Additionally, claiming that this guy and this event is nothing more than a perpetuation of the ravenous, 24-hour news cycle is preposterous. The simple fact the article cites so many articles as references, which are mostly redundant in that they are news articles covering the exact same information from different media outlets proves that anyone interested in true crime gossip can find it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SATEditor2016 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines. Here's a few snippets from policy.
- WP:NCRIME: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." It's indisputable that there has been significant media coverage on him.
- WP:BLP1E: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." He has been in the news since January of 2015.
- WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." While we can argue about how significant the event is, it's become a rather big deal and as the perpetrator, his role in it is rather large.
- WP:GNG: It's obvious that he passes all criteria for GNG so I won't even elaborate. Transcendence (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has been covered by numerous articles in major new outlets devoted specifically to him. Many more references from respected news sources are available than the ones currently in the article, so there is ample room for improvement. He was originally only covered by local newspapers, the Stanford Daily, SF Chronicle, but now has articles devoted to him in national media, like USA Today, The Washington Postt, etc.as And the issue he's involved with (not just sexual assault, but the justice system) is continuing to garner expanding coverage long after the initial event---it's not a bright but disappearing new flash.Bruriyah (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Campus Sexual Assault is the wrong merge target — I'm reserving judgment on whether or not Brock Turner was independently notable, so I can raise a major concern about the merge proposals. (Note to newcomers, Wikipedia policies are often restrictive on this point, but that doesn't prevent relevant content about, say, Adam Lanza, from appearing on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.) Both WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME guidelines question whether not-otherwise-notable individuals should be topic of an independent Wikipedia article, but the guidance they offer is about incorporating the available encyclopedic material. In general, this means merging to or creating a page about the specific crime. Thus we have Steubenville High School rape case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. Merging to campus sexual assault would require a massive and unnecessary deletion of encyclopedic content. So, those who favor a merge should back a renaming of the article to something like Sexual assualt by Brock Turner or January 2015 Stanford rape (although the latter may like precision).--Carwil (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carwil:Agreed! I looked at that page yesterday and tried figuring out where one case would fit in in a way that wouldn't overwhelm the article. I don't think it can if we do this topic proper justice. Jami430 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I strongly disagree that Brock Turner's page violates Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wouldn't a strain on Wikipedia's neutrality stance actually demonstrate a strong attempt to be neutral? Neutrality itself is not a fact--it is an aim that is embedded in the delivery of an argument. All writing makes some kind of claim. The veracity of that claim is what determines whether the source is being neutral. Is Brock Turner a convicted rapist? If a record of conviction exists, we can then turn our attention to the problem of the term "rape." Rape, by any definition, is not a 'neutral' phenomenon. As a concept, it raises all kinds of categorical challenges for writers--when is rape rape? What are the boundaries between the terms rape and sexual assault? Is there a such thing as "intent to rape" (which implies that intent is not sufficient enough to constitute the violation suggested by the term rape). Of course, there remains the question of notability. Who is Brock Turner, and why--of all the convicted rapists in America--does he warrant Wikipedia page coverage? On Wikipedia, the question of inclusion presents a problem for those who assume that notability could ever be discussed as a 'neutral' thing. Phenomena ought to be considered 'notable' if it becomes a widely circulated narrative. One *fact* of Turner's conviction that has generated enough media response to introduce his name to the masses involves the legitimacy of Turner's sentencing. A neutral stance that ignores the sociopolitical context in which meanings are made compromises its value as such. Age, race, and class clearly played a major role in Turner's very light sentence. Turner, then, has been transformed into a symbol of a stratified U.S. criminal justice system, which makes it of importance to anti-racist social movements and organizations from #BLM to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Furthermore, the victim was unconscious during her rape, which has caused some discussion about whether she was 'actually' raped. In addition to generating discussion about fairness and justice, the Turner case is part of a larger public conversation about campus sexual assault and alcohol abuse that cause people to vigorously debate how we talk about rape as a legal, social, and political issue, especially when victims are acquaintances. In sum, the Brock Turner case warrants inclusion and should not be deleted. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is flexible enough to withstand the relativity of perception and the reality of an event and the scope of its impact. Neutrality is not a matter of whether something is true, but whether the syntax of categorical claims about reality avoids expressions of value (e.g. good, bad, ethical, positive, negative). In other words, rape may conjure a number of value associations about 'bad character' (e.g. creep, criminal, dangerous violent creepy criminal), but that has nothing to do with the reporting of a legal status--however controversial. For the article to maintain Wikipedia's standard, it should acknowledge that the conviction of Brock Turner is controversial, and of relevance to a significant number of Wikipedia's publics--hence its inclusion. --JaneNova (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Notable both because of the seriousness of the crime and the current focus on sexual assaults in America, particularly on college campuses. Publicus 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus it. Turner was not notable (he had no entry at all until two days ago). The crime however is quite notable for a number of reasons, and deserves its own page.173.85.106.172 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a person who is involved in a high profile judgment which is bringing to light how these criminal cases are handled. Trilliant (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This is an historical case on so many levels. Also, the words of the victim at the predator's sentencing are poetic and gripping, worth keeping alive for all to read. Wikipedia documents peoples' lives -- If, down the road, Brock Turner finally "gets it" and spreads a strong message against campus assault, the page will be updated accordingly. Only he has the power to change his future ... and Wiki page.24.148.43.123 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that it would be helpful if not only this article was kept, but that there be a page INCLUDING a PICTURE of each person on the Sexual Predator list. It is public record. This person is convicted. There is no dispute on whether or not the crime was committed. The facts stated do not inhibit the neutrality of this website. Let's protect the victim and potential future victims. Let's not protect the rapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.90.250.81 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Brock Turner is a notorious person by virtue of the defense at his trial and sentencing as well as the light sentence assigned. His notoriety is quite likely to grow as the subject of sexual assaults on U.S. campuses gains more attention and the judge in the case becomes the focus of outrage on social media and possible recall. Wikipedia policy states that the perpetrator of a crime merits his own article if "the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Brock Turner meets this requirement. A great many people have their own Wikipedia article based solely on one notorious crime or trial. See, for example, Lizzie Borden, H.H. Holmes, Scott Carpenter, William Calley, and Ethan Couch. Shortynj (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Turner is not notable, although seems to have engaged in pretty reprehensible conduct. The crime however is a noteworthy example of campus rape of one drunk by another. This page has virtually no biographical information about Turner which isn't about his crime/conviction. I doubt we would be debating this if he had been sentenced to the full 10 years, or if it turned out that Ms Doe had given him a condom prior to passing out; what I am claiming is that this article is reactionary and not noteworthy.Abitslow (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Rosa Parks would not be famous if nothing had happened after she refused to give up her seat on the bus. She's really famous because of the subsequent impact of that action. Brock Turner is not special or interesting, his crime is not noteworthy, but it has sparked a global outcry (I am not in the US) which may well have a significant impact. It's much too early to judge, but would keep for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savkraft (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now but rename it, 2016 Stanford Rape or something like that. It seems to be evolving as there is now an attempt to recall the judge, which may go nowhere. But while the perpetrator does not deserve a WP page, and neither does the crime, it may in the near future if the recall gets on the ballot. Judges are not recalled often. Geo8rge (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I do like the idea of renaming the page Sexual Assault by Brock Turner or some such as that is really what this page is concerned with. But I do not think it should be merged into campus sexual assault as this case has had hallmark actions associated with it from the sentence to the victim's statement and the father's letterm that merit a stand-alone page. This case will be taught and talked about in relation to the state of sexual assault on campuses for years to come. --tassieg (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep Passes WP:N with flying colors. Rename as appropriate. --IShadowed (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - Seems like it would not be notable under WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BIO1E. Also under wikipedia is not news . This was not a nationally or internationally known criminal act or criminal until the unexpectedly light sentence was reacted to. The person is convicted of 3 counts of sexual assault and he happened to be a university level competitive swimmer. Neither of these justifies a wiki page to himself. His father's reaction is not surprising, "parent advocates for their child" is surely not newsworthy, nor should judges really listen when a parent advocates for their own child. It would be far more surprising if a parent said to the court, "my child should be punished severely". Merge into a page on sentencing for sexual assault convictions, and how this case generated a strong public reaction.Japanscot (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename it. I do not claim great expertise in Wikipedia's policies and I see that Mr. Turner is an imperfect fit for the standards of when an article is appropriate for a criminal. But isn't that missing the forest for the trees? The rape, the sentence, the victim's statement, and the father's letter clearly pass any reasonable standard of notability given the very significant press coverage. Isn't the obvious way to square this circle to rename the article something like "Controversy Over Rape of 'Emily Doe' at Stanford University"? I don't see how the crime, the reaction, the sentence, the victim's statement, the father's letter and all the resultant controversy and press coverage and possible attempt to recall the judge could possible fail to satisfy standards of notability in the same way that the Stuebenville rape case did. Why not recategorize the article and expand it with more about the controversy and the reaction? Everything in the present article would fit well in an article about the crime and resultant controversy, as would information about the victim's statement and the threat to attempt to unseat the judge.

Edited to add: As for Wikipedia not being a newspaper, I read that standard and it refers to routine news stories. The initial report of the rape would have rightly been excluded on this basis, but there is nothing routine about the story now. Enough coverage transforms routine news into history. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was news, but that doesn't change the fact that it was also a major historical event. This story is a now minor historical event, not mere routine news.The Peanut Gallery (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename This is an instance where the crime, and reaction to it, are more notable than the perpetrator. The case passes WP:GNG but WP:CRIMINAL is relevant here.LM2000 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would put this event under the Affluenza defense. Ethan Couch has his own page and I believe that Brock Turner should have his own page also. Further, I would link Brock Turner as a Notable Incident from the Affluenza page. While, unfortunately, the crime may be common, the 6 month sentence is appalling and noteworthy. davey.y2k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear WP:BLP violation. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If there are unsourced claims in the article, then those claims should be cited or removed, but that is an article editing rather than article deletion issue and has no impact on the inherent notability of the subject, which is what matters in a deletion discussion and why the article should be kept. —Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factually correct information is not generally a BLP violation. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 04:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly keep as is for now, as it is very prominent in the news. A BLP, but not a violation, it is all well sourced, and appropriately written, certainly far better that what is all over the internet today. When the news cycle calms, a merge may be appropriate, per WP:BLP1E. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News coverage sufficient to establish notability. —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

° "Redirect" - move this to an article that covers the case as it is an important case in this country's history that should be present on Wikipedia. If not Redirect, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.178.87 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 2015 Stanford Campus Rape Case or similar, and redirect Brock Turner to the renamed article. As many have noted above, Brock Turner is not the primary subject of this article and if he was it would be deletable under WP:BLP1E. There has been significant national and international coverage of the case, the verdict and the subsequent fallout from the verdict, up to and including a circulating petition to recall the elected judge in the case; this indicates clear notability under WP:N. "Brock Turner" will remain a valid search term for this case (hence the redirect) and the conviction is a matter of public record and international news and therefore should not violate WP:BLP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Respect the victim. Do not merge into an article which may become a forum for further assault on the victim. Deletion will compromise Wikipedia as a reference for notable events and persons. If the rapist had admitted guilt and had accepted responsibility for his actions, maybe his crime would have been a one-time, low profile event, unworthy of Wikipedia. Instead of choosing a low profile resolution, by falsely asserting his innocence at trial, creating a public spectacle and continuing his pattern of anti-social behavior, the remorseless, convicted rapist made himself worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. Please encourage contributors to include more information about Mr. Turner's continuing and present activities and accomplishments.
Note: Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS about deletion policies. This is not a place for voting based on emotional arguments, which will be ignored by the closing administrator. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 04:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. The information is important and notable via a conjunction of WP:CRIME and WP:ATHLETE, which respectively define a notable person as a criminal who is otherwise notable, and an athlete who is otherwise notable. A criminal athlete sounds potentially notable, and the months and months of media coverage puts me over the edge. WP:BLP1E applies only to low-profile individuals: specifically, if an individual has engaged in any kind of self-promotion, they are likely to be considered high-profile. I'm inclined to count Turner's father as an extension of Turner for the purposes of this policy, given the close nature of their relationship, and the specific nature of the crime. As a case against renaming:The case in question is not well-known by any unanimous moniker: "the case with Brock Turner and the series of events and news coverage that followed" may be descriptive, but it's hardly convenient or useful. If instead, we decided to pick one of the names for the Event in question from the various news stories, it's possible we might technically be hewing closer to our rules on neutrality, but we'd also be making a choice at the whim of whoever titled the article, and that seems to violate the spirit of neutrality we should be reaching for. Comrade pem (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Stanford rape case (or 2015 Stanford rape case) as with the Steubenville High School rape case and some others. The details of the perp are not the most relevant part from our perspective (he's not a serial rapist or otherwise notable person), but rather the fallout from the sentencing which makes this notable. its a news cycle item, of course, but it is getting significant enough coverage that we should allow it its own article. arguments about the victims rights, or even the perps rights, are not relevant. we are not creating the publicity, its our job to mirror media/societal focus, not amplify or judge and ignore it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and create separate article about the case as there is likely a critical mass of sources that could justify both an article about Turner and an article titled "2015 Stanford rape case" or something similar. As has been discussed, the case is likely to inform future rulings about assault, both on college campuses and elsewhere.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now calls to recall the judge in the case, further justifying an argument for two articles, as information about the repercussions of the event beyond how they pertain to Turner would only be appropriate elsewhere.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there sufficient coverage for a Brock Turner article in addition to an article about the case? The vast majority of coverage has been about the case, not about the rapist; if split, what would be included in the Brock Turner article to satisfy concerns of WP:BLP1E? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this information, even a single sentence summary, does not belong in the Campus sexual assault, nor should it be a redirect to that. that article is a broad overview, and the case we are talking about in this article is an entirely unremarkable campus sexual assault. what is remarkable, in the news today, is the judge's sentencing. the campus was not involved in that per se, this is an example of possible white priviledge, or high status priviledge, and of possible unfair sentencing. its also an example of popular response to a legal matter, and the tension between the protected status of judges and the will of the people. if someone wanted to create a list article of notable campus sexual assaults, that would be an appropriate redirect target, IF i didnt already feel that this is deserving of an article anyway.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Stanford rape case (or 2015 Stanford rape case). This is now notable, because in 72 hours 5.5 million people hare read the victim impact statement on BuzzFeed. In addition it has been featured on a dozen large news sites, see the article, including internationally. It is now way past the bar for notability. Nick Beeson (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider renaming meets WP:GNG -- but WP:CRIMINAL a bit more in doubt. The event has generated significant coverage to justify an entry, just not sure if the perpetrator should be the center Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 04:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor, pretty much a textbook violation of WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME at the moment. Turner isn't notable, but the sentence and the reaction may be. Lets then come back in six months and see if anyone is still discussing this case, with the benefit of some hindsight. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Significant coverage and discourse about the issue by all notable news agencies. And these were all original news writeups, not cut-and-paste syndicated content. And to address the proposer's argument that the person is notable for only a "low profile event", I would argue that the subject and the case are inexplicably linked, and certainly neither of them are low-profile. Alternatively, as many suggested, rename the article to the "case name" but redirect "Brock Turner" to this article. As far as I know, there are no other notable "Brock Turner"s, hence any search here for Turner would be actually looking for info about this case.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But Rename to a title that does not include "Brock Turner" in the title. Have "Brock Turner" as a WP:REDIRECT. It is not Wikipedia's place to be heaping shame on an individual. Let me change this to simply Keep with the current title which is Brock Turner sentencing controversy. I find that title acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article should be renamed, it is not because of concern for shaming a rapist. Although this coverage of Turner is undeniably negative, WP:BLP recognizes that people do bad things and that that can be acknowledged when it is reported in reliable sources. Turner was found guilty of this assault; we should not be renaming the article purely to help a rapist save face. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither Wikipedia's job to shame someone nor to help them save face. In this case, anyway, we cannot possibly make his reputation any worse; his lenient sentencing plus the victim's statement and his father's have received prominent worldwide news coverage. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for the name, using Wikipedia's basic Search function, expecting to find it under "containing..." but I was surprised to see it as the title of an article. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename and rework into an article on 2015 Stanford rape case (or something similar, not sure what the best title would be here). Brock Turner is not the notable element here; the majority of coverage is on the trial itself, Turner's father's alleged letter, and widespread response to and coverage of both. I think there would be value to revisiting this in six months, per Lankiveil's suggestion, but I also think the amount of coverage at the current moment is sufficient for inclusion in some form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should point that this was likely not the only Stanford rape case in 2015. For 2014 the university reported, as required by law, 30 sex offenses though this includes offenses other than rape (e.g., unwanted touching for the purpose of sexual gratification). I agree that renaming to reflect an emphasis on the case not the culprit. I suspect there will be some opposition to using the word "rape" in the name because California has a narrower definition of rape than the federal government (i.e., this will be reported by the University to the federal government as a rape but he was convicted of penetration with a foreign object of an unconscious person and attempted rape). Erp (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, and I acknowledge in my comment that that may not be the best title. 2015 Stanford sexual assault case? Or we could add the month and/or day? I am not well versed enough in various intricacies of federal/state U.S. law to decide this, though I do see that the article (currently) reads "Turner was convicted under California state law on three assault charges, two of which would be considered rape under U.S. federal crime reporting guidelines." Regardless of that, there is a way to unambiguously refer to this case, rather than write a biographical article of the rapist, and that is the approach I think we as Wikipedians should take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there a case number or tite associated with the case? perhaps that would be a useful tool for establishing a name? Lachlan.00 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename -- it's the case that's notable, not so much the perpetrator. The redirect should be kept. Nothing else about Brock Turner's life is relevant to an encyclopedia. Should he become notable for other reasons than just this case, then an article on him specifically would be justified. Also, the notable stuff here isn't just him; it's the victim and her well-publicized statement, the actions of the judge, the statement by the father, and whatever may happen in future (he's appealing the decision, and people are trying to get the judge removed from office for this). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and modify accordingly: I agree with GorillaWarfare. The notable aspect of this incident isn't the perpetrator himself but the incident, the media coverage surrounding it and public interest in the case (e.g. at time of writing there are over 200,000 signatures on a petition at "change.org" asking for the judge overseeing the case to be recalled). Perhaps an appropriate article could be the "Stanford rape incident -2015" or something similar? Lachlan.00 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a move request on the article talk page to move this to Brock Turner sentencing controversy, given that the controversy is predominantly over the sentencing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Extensive international coverage pins this felon by name, not by court docket or case file. Highly notable individual, all refs verifiable. If there's a difference in precedent between this man and Ethan Couch, I'm not seeing it. Article does need refinement by some of the better editors afoot. BathCandles (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a newsworthy event, it is a crime and there are no distinguishing characteristics to make this worthy of inclucion in an encyclopaedia. Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite persistent, consistent, international coverage of the event? This has been in the media for quite a while. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 12:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would recommend keeping the article due to the notoriety of the case as well as the athletic ability and potential of Brock Turner. He was a 3x All-American in high school, was a member of the USA Swimming National Junior Team before he got a swimming scholarship at Stanford, and there was a very real possibility he could have competed in the Olympics and maybe even medaled. This could have been someone who would have eventually had a Wikipedia profile for their accomplishment and fame in athletics rather than as a student athlete sex offender. I think this is a big case featuring a very talented person who now will not have a chance to fulfill their potential due to their criminal actions. Aoa8212 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is not about the person or the crime, but the resulting widespread controversy, followed around the world, regarding the leniency of the sentence. UCaetano (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Keep, or merge - Keep, or merge to Stanford_University#21st_century. There are dozens of references for this notorious case, and Judge Aaron Persky has been lenient on another 2007 case as well. Perhaps a new article entitled History of Stanford University can be created to encompass this case. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this still up for discussion? Changing the article to be about the crime rather than the person was a good move. I still prefer Brock Turner rape case to Brock Turner sentencing controversy, but I can see why we'd use that particular title. Jami430 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article title is currently “Brock Turner sentencing controversy” which has itself become an event of note beyond the actions of Turner or the sentence he received for his crimes. The notability of the subject Turner or any measure of the newsworthiness of his assault are secondary to the reality of the impact the sentencing has had upon the public’s consciousness. May I point out that Rosa Parks was not a noteworthy person in 1955. Esjones (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the widespread coverage in conventional media sources and on social media this is a case that will clearly continue to have widespread impact in conversations around sexism and sexual violence in the U.S. mennonot (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to keep and rename this page, please join the conversation about what to call it at Talk:Brock_Turner_sentencing_controversy#Requested_move_7_June_2016--Carwil (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issue has turned from a local issue covered by the Stanford Daily and SF Chronicle to one which is being covered by respected national and international news outlets. It does not appear to be a "news flash" but rather one that is engaging people in a national discussion. Bruriyah (talk) 18:08, 7 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. J04n(talk page) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Jory[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based on a single primary source with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown, of a journalist notable primarily for running a hockey team's social media presence. This is not a claim of notability that gets somebody into an encyclopedia in and of itself, if they aren't the subject of enough media coverage about them in that role to pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes no where near meeting the notability requirements for a journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good catch. Created in February 2012 by a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest ("Derek Jory is a very popular blogger and is well known in Vancouver"). This is no Albert Londres. —Prhart com♥ 05:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's by far nothing at all for any applicable notability including minimal notability, nothing at all convincing and thus nothing to salvage or otherwise improve. Delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a clear-cut case. He's just not particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:45, 13 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 and redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. The consensus seems to be delete, and the redirect seems a good idea at least for now. This is a soft delete. A new article by someone without conflict of interest is possible. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Friedman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I point out that User talk:reddogsix used just six words to attempt to delete my extensive article that I spent hours working on. Next, I would really like every editor to consider this action. Was this editor's actions really a good-faith edit? I don't believe so. Why do I think this? Because he didn't read the article. How do I know this? Because I refuse to believe that any learned person would dare call The Times Literary Supplement trivial? I am referring, of course to an extensive, lengthy, heady 2500 word article published about Julia Friedman and her 2 recent books that was just published May 27. But, perhaps this editor does not have any idea what the TLS is after-all? The TLS is only the leading international weekly for literary culture in the western world. In plain terms, the TLS is the opposite of trivial. Seriously. Next, what about giving a lecture with Dave Hickey at none-other-than the UCLA Hammer Museum? Would anyone think this is a trivial action. Most certainly not. Then what about lecturing at Stanford University? Is lecturing at Stanford University trivial, I don't think so. Is teaching at Waseda University trivial? Afterall, Waseda University is the so-called Princeton University of Japan -- where Obama is right now. Waseda is not trivial. Is publishing with Martin Kemp (art historian) about Leonardo da Vinci a trivial act? I don't think so...I could go on and on but I will not. These important sources, institutions and publishers are likely to persuade many of the learned and responsible commentators against deletion.

The following are important points to keep in mind about this significance of Julia Friedman's new wiki-page:

I have many cited sources: The Times Literary Supplement, Observer.com, newcriterion.com etc
This person is closely associated with many important figures: Dave Hickey, Wally Hedrick, Martin Kemp (art historian), and Alexei Remizov etc
These sources establish notability.
This art historian has published with many important institutions: Northwestern University Press, Warburg Institute, Artforum, Huffington Post etc
These institutions establish notability.
This art historian has taught with many important institutions: Waseda University, University of Tokyo, Durham University, Syracuse University, Brown University, Rhode Island School of Design, University of California, Irvine, Arizona State University, California State University, Long Beach, and Temple University etc
These institutions establish notability.
This page meets general notability guidelines and biography notability guidelines.
These sources are true, verifiable, and claim significance
These important sources and venues are likely to persuade many of the commentators against deletion.

If I can be of further assistance to any learned editor, please contact me Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 03:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Please refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments and focus on the issues related to meeting/demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 04:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of demonstrating above. But, since you don't want to -- or simply can't -- address any of my many significant nobility claims, let me put this single inquiry to you? Is it your belief User:reddogsix that The Times Literary Supplement is a notable authority or not? And, next, have you read the article in question to determine its credibility? If so, can you tell me anything about the contents of this invaluable article whatsoever? Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of all I never said, "The Times Literary Supplement" is not notable. I said the support was trivial. Somewhat of a difference. As far as addressing your "significant nobility claims." I'll cite only a two of many. Notability is not inherited, so your comments that, "[t]his person is closely associated with many important figures," does not establish Wikipedia WP:Notability for the individual. Neither does teaching "with many important institutions." Perhaps your inability to see those issues is clouded by what appears to be your conflict of interest (COI)? The COI stems from the use of a picture with the Metadata that would only be available from the photographer - if I am wrong please let me know. Instead of trying to go after me, how about you reread WP:Notability, including the associated sub-articles and WP:OR to clarify your understanding of what is needed per Wikipedia standards.

Oh, yes, and as far as your comment that I have not read the article goes, are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that or are you really trying to evoke a war of words by making WP:UNCIVIL comments? </sigh> reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much User talk:reddogsix for being honest. Now we all can read your comments that reveal that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it is about you racking up the wiki edits. How wonderful. Hopefully not all the other wiki editors are as jaded and misguided. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Independent sources seem to be only a mention in a review or so. But if this oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, by a redlink spa, is to be kept it will have to be pruned of its Boosterism and puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

It may interest every editor in this discussion to read the written confession of the wiki editor who started this unnecessary procedure:

"are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that [i.e. read the Julia Friedman article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)"

Now we all can read that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it was about an editor trying racking up the wiki edits. How wonderful. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)— Wwwwhatupprrr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No WP:personal attacks please. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The subject appears notable; her recent compilations on Dave Hickey, in particular, have attracted some very significant press attention. I've had a play with the article; it's not perfect, but I'm really not seeing a justification for all the shade being thrown at it. I can understand why Wwwwhatupprrr is frustrated, here. Whatever happened to not biting the newbies? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any biting of newbies here. User:reddogsix nominated an article for deletion in good faith and the article's creator came out swinging. Whether or not the article's subject is notable has nothing to do with User:Wwwwhatupprrr's incivility and bad faith accusations. I would ask that editor to recuse themselves at this point to allow a discussion to take place. As the article's creator s/he has a built-in bias and s/he has made their opinion known. Any further comments are a distraction. freshacconci talk to me 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wwwwhatupprrr should disengage, and suggested that to her/him myself. However, I strongly disagree that there has been no biting of newbies. Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:J Milburn. No, this "Now we all can read that this entire debacle isn't about notability or lack of notability, rather it was about an editor trying racking up the wiki edits" is uncivil and the warning was valid. freshacconci talk to me 18:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Freshacconci: If you characterize my astonishment and amazement as uncivil? What do you call these comments from User:reddogsix "are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that [i.e. read the Julia Friedman article / and any supporting notably citation in the article]? </sigh>" reddogsix (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)". Any statement to this effect from any wiki editor is inexcusable: an editor making wiki edits without reading -- for the sake of accruing "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" -- is like the blind walking around in a forest. Seriously. Again, I repeat, '"If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn" --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was an uncivil comment -- particularly given the context as outlined below. No offense to User:J Milburn but he is just one editor and his comment about being pissed off is just an opinion, nothing more. And I really suggest User:Wwwwhatupprrr that you back away from commenting as you are not helping your position, particularly when you are just repeating yourself. This discussion is meant to persuade other editors and the closing administrator. Your attack mode will not help. freshacconci talk to me 19:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Freshacconci: Thank you again for your comments. No offense to User:J Milburn but he is just one editor who agrees with me. And no offense to you User:Freshacconci but you are one editor who disagrees with me. However, I would, in all fairness, like to strongly disagree with you on two points. First, I have indeed helped my position by clearly demonstrating that this AfD came about only because one editor was by their own admission attempting to rack up "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" for their own self-esteem. Secondly, any editor can see that "I am not repeating myself", as you claim, if you were to read my response to other good-faith editors comments below. That said, I will not mention the damaging commentary by User:reddogsix again. I promise. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I am trying, I am sure these words will again either be ignored or misrepresented, but here goes. The actual quote was, " Oh, yes, and as far as your comment that I have not read the article goes, are you really naive enough to believe that someone with over 41K edits would do that or are you really trying to evoke a war of words by making WP:UNCIVIL comments?" That in the prior sentence being "not read the article." We can continue to miss the point, that is the notability of the article or continue to cloud the issue with unrelated comments. reddogsix (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:reddogsix: Thank you again for reaffirming your position yet again User:reddogsix even though your position was already perfectly clear: Your editorial position is that it is better to espouse editorial platitudes for the sake of accruing "higher wiki editorial editing numbers" than it is to read what is written in good-faith in wikipedia so one can make a sound judgements and suggestions. In my opinion, this is just a sad editorial position. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, you have again misinterpreted my comments. No where do I say or have I implied what you have indicated I have. reddogsix (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the detailed recounting of the inappropriate actions directed against my good-faith contributions. Especially your conclusion: "If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn" --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Redirect: I've read what I can of the refs (but not the paywalled TLS). Her claim to notability (as opposed to accomplishment) is her two compilations of Hickey's writings, that's what the bulk of the article (which does not significantly vary - or need to significantly vary - from the sections in his article) is about. The primary notability is thus his, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and in the absence of other evidence of notability for Friedman, a redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words: The Essential Dave Hickey Online Compilation appears justified. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 16:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hydronium for your comments. Is this the appropriate space to address the accuracy of your comments? Your comments appear from a distance intuitively correct, but they are, under closer inspection, simply misinformed. For example, you state "Friedman's "notability should not be inherited" from Hickey. That comment would sound reasonable enough for any uninitiated reader, but it is plain wrong. Why do I say this? Because, once you examine the primary literature you will discover the truth about the 2 books you mention; rather than simply rely upon your convention and assumed wisdom, i.e. that already famous men have all the good ideas. In fact, Wasted Words and Dust Bunnies originated with Julia Friedman. These books did not originate with Dave Hickey. Hickey says as much every chance he gets, "Friedman called me to ask my permission to publish." This is a vitally important point. This accurate insight means that you have the notability question completely backwards: Hickey/Wasted Words/Dust Bunnies is drawing upon the inheriting notability of Julia Friedman's learning and insights. In plain terms, the notability of these two books rests NOT with "Hickey" or "Hickey's words", but rather, these 2 books reveal (i.e. Julia Friedman's) keen observations about (as she clearly states on the back cover for all to read): "these digital writings highlight the impact of digital technology on culture." The recent reviewer in The Times Literary Supplement goes to great lengths to expose Friedman's profound insights. Moreover, Friedman's books critically examine and extend the discourse in the New Media discipline, which Ai Weiwei's Blog: Writings, Interviews, and Digital Rants publication began in 2006 — a discourse and dialogue that the rapidly aging Hickey is completely unaware of. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwwhatupprrr. An examination of the WP:PRIMARY literature is not usable for establishing notability. What Wikipedia requires are reliable secondary sources — what others say about her rather than what she says about others — and most of the references do not establish her notability:

References which do not establish notability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1, 2, 3: Her works 5, 7/10/12: Coverage is primarily of Hickey. No significant independent coverage of Friedman, or qualitative assessment of her contribution is provided. 8/11: Coverage is primarily of Hickey. Coverage of Friedman is confined to the fact that she compiled his writings, a quote from her and him, and the barest qualitative assessment ("clarified"). 9: The focus in this one-paragraph capsule is Hickey, Friedman is mentioned factually, but not really qualitatively. 13: a one-line mention of the release. 15: Not relevant

References which do not establish notability

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1, 2, 3: Her works
5, 7/10/12: Coverage is primarily of Hickey. No significant independent coverage of Friedman, or qualitative assessment of her contribution is provided.
8/11: Coverage is primarily of Hickey. Coverage of Friedman is confined to the fact that she compiled his writings, a quote from her and him, and the barest qualitative assessment ("clarified").
9: The focus in this one-paragraph capsule is Hickey, Friedman is mentioned factually, but not really qualitatively.
13: a one-line mention of the release.
15: Not relevant

This leaves the Java Magazine and Times Literary Supplement sources.

The 4/6 - Java article is mostly sourced from a WP:PRIMARY interview with her, but there is some additional information. It provides less establishment of notability for Friedman than Hickey or the book(s) (WP:NBOOK).

The 14 -- TLS article is paywalled and I can't access it. Now while it is quite possible that the TLS article covers her contribution significantly and qualitatively, that'd still be more or less one independent source that does.

The primary sources might show she's accomplished, however in terms of secondary source notability it's almost WP:BLP1E, where her notable "event" is the production of these associated books. For NBOOK, there's probably enough, but it's not clear that this requires one or more separate articles rather than remaining integrated (and expanded if required) at Dave Hickey.

My response above was in part an invitation to actually establish her distinct notability. What might help this (noting that per Java, "Wasted Words is the complete, unedited transcript of [Hickey's] posts, conversations and threads...", and that somebody had to contact somebody regarding permission to publish) could be some of the following:

A quote and/or summary from the TLS where Hawkes discusses Friedman's contribution to Dust Bunnies qualitatively (and not just that it happened and how). The current TLS mention in the article in no way establishes notability for Friedman.
Reliable source evidence from the TLS or elsewhere discussing how these books and/or Friedman's other work "extend the discourse in the New Media discipline" (although if on the Hickey books then that may be more NBOOK against those)
Evidence of critical appraisal in reliable sources of Beyond Symbolism and Surrealism or her other works.
Evidence of citation of her works.

Alternatively or also, show that secondary reliably sourced evidence already provided meets one or more criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NACADEMIC, or similar. Or show that she's won a notable award or that there's ample coverage of her outside the context of these two books and thus she clearly meets WP:ANYBIO (and WP:GNG). In short (and about time): Show, don't tell. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hydronium Hydroxide: Thank you for your lengthy response above and invitation "to actually establish [Friedman's] distinct notability." I am not sure where to begin given my exhaustion. Afterall, your efforts above on our behalf are greatly appreciated. But I shall be brief: Julia Friedman, like many people living today, wears many hats. In this instance, I believe that she is a notable (a) art historian, (b) critic, (c) curator, and (d) educator/expert. In other words, she is not simply an art historian. (1) That said, in this AfD I have recently posted three more notable peer reviews in art history which I hope you will examine, which include many paragraphs from TLS. Please let me know if you cannot find this material. (2) As a critic, Friedman regularly contributes to Artforum, the leading US contemporary art magazine -- which by itself appears good enough for Friedman's colleague Catherine Taft. Additionally, her notable accomplishments as a critic have been recognized by invitation (museums do not do "peer review" articles in journals) like the Hammer Museum, SITE Santa Fe, and Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art to name a few. This is earned notability, not inherited notability. (3) As a curator, I am currently working on Friedman's international exhibitions section. (4) As an educator and expert her breath of knowledge and experience is, understandably, currently being curtailed in the article. (5) What I meant in my comment above "once you examine the primary literature" was the Dave Hickey and Julia Friedman articles themselves, which both state: "Eighteen months later, Friedman suggested [to Hickey] a project documenting his experience." In other words, to redirect Julia Friedman to Dave Hickey does a disservice to this woman's (A) lone -- (B) and entire -- accomplishments. Many other editors, too, rightly recognize the injustice any redirect would imply. I hope to address more of your insights when time permits. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reply to Hydronium Hydroxide: Dear Hydronium, I have discovered another -- more in-depth and precise -- full-length article, entitled Julia Friedman's Artistic Vision, also by Jenna Duncan, about Julia Friedman in JAVA magazine from December 2012. I would like to share it with you. It is a pre-Hickey extended article. I discovered the lengthy article here...on this webpage. It has alot of interesting material which you enjoy. More information about this article can be found in the article's TALK page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears notable. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ipigott: how is she "obviously" notable? freshacconci talk to me 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Josh Milburn above. The article subject is notable. Her work regarding Dave Hickey, in and of itself has received significant coverage from independent reliable resources. The sources regarding the Dave Hickey works are listed here: [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24] are more than enough to show Freidman's notability. She of course passes WP:GNG, Plus there are even more sources within the article that also significantly cover the article subject as well. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. I tried to search for independant reviews of mentions of her work with no context, related to "The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation" and didn't find it. As an art historian and writer, her books and she have to have a notable peer reviews to support the notability claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Arthistorian1977 and thank you for joining this AfD. I am sorry you were unable to find "independant reviews of mentions of her work" given that Julia Friedman, like many people living today, wears many hats. For the purposes of this discussion, I do believe that Julia Friedman is a notable (a) art historian, (b) critic, (c) curator, and (d) educator/expert. In other words, I believe she is not simply an art historian - even though that alone is a noble profession. That said, in this AfD I have recently posted just three peer reviewed articles in art history which I hope you will examine:

* Summary of the The Times Literary Supplement review so much in question.

* The Absolute Leonardo - Journal of Art Historiography - Review by Professor Claire Farago (University of Colorado)

* Coagula Art Journal #113, May 2016

If you cannot find this information in the various threads please let me know. Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, I'm opposed to the redirect that some have suggested; if the subject is determined to not be notable, let us just delete the article. Redirecting to a different biography is somewhat misleading; Dr Friedman has some level of notability beyond producing these books, even if producing the books might be one of the key claims of notability. (And in reply to freshacconci above; as I said, the comments for which you warned Wwwwhatupprrr may well have been uncivil, but they did not contain a personal attack. The warning you gave was for personal attacks. In addition, it's somewhat selective to remove that comment as the problematic one; there's been incivility from a number of people involved in this wider discussion, and I am not convinced that Wwwwhatupprrr's comments were even the most egregious example. I stand by my claim that your warning was inappropriate.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section mentioned above. While I'd prefer a plot twist wherein Wasted Words and Dust Bunnies is independently notable and serves as a suitable redirect, this isn't the case. The Observer and TLS reviews (I can access beyond the paywall, if you want) are substantial, but the New Criterion and Book Forum reviews are not, so the book is best covered in the aforementioned section. (With the Las Vegas Weekly and KNPR Hickey interviews, just one more major review should make the books sufficiently notable for their own article, if the redirect is that big a concern. Java mag appears to be a blog, or at least has no hallmarks of editorial reliability.) Friedman is responsible for one of the books so the section is a suitable redirect, even if it doesn't represent the breadth of her work. As for the article creator, all it takes is a few edited volumes with reviews to make a person notable, so it's likely that she'll have an article in the future. If/when that is the case, we can restore your work—so it's not in vain. As mentioned above, the language is a bit obsequious and would need cleanup. If the historian's notability apart from the books has not been sufficiently addressed, I don't see what sources we would be using to support her notability apart from her editorship. If her work as a historian as become noted in her field, sources will say so. Invited lectures are not the same as secondary sources asserting a topic's importance. czar 22:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the generous comments User talk:Czar. So, knowing full well you put some good-faith effort above, I just did a quick search just now and found two more reviews for you. Perhaps they will meet your standards as you mentioned that you just needed a few more reviews to post a KEEP (after all, I didn't want to turn the wiki article into a CV since that is against wiki policy):

* The Absolute Leonardo - Journal of Art Historiography - Review by Professor Claire Farago (University of Colorado): "Book review: Claire Farago on The Lives of Leonardo, ed. Thomas Frangenberg and Rodney Palmer, Warburg Institute Colloquia", 2 February 2015. May I just post one comment by the reviewer for what its worth in this discussion:

"Friedman’s analysis is an exemplary study of ‘intertextual’ relationships among these particular authors that deserves to be expanded to include their active appropriation of the Vasari Life of Leonardo and whatever other sources they used." Website | Website Page | Full Review Contents (PDF)

* Coagula Art Journal #113, May 2016: The 113th issue of ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’, May 2016, is the largest ever printed in the magazine’s 24 year history at 88 pages. This issue highlights Eric Minh Swenson's documentary photographs of Art Stars – 160 women artists, dealers, and writers in the art scene from New York to California – with an introduction by Mat Gleason. Cecily Brown, Catherine Opie, Alexis Smith (artist), Casey Jane Ellison, Edythe Broad, Hunter Drohojowska-Philip, Julia Friedman, Helen Molesworth, Michele Maccarone, and other notable "art stars" are featured. Art Stars is also an art exhibition that is currently on view at The Museum of Art and History (MOAH), Lancaster, CA, which runs until July 24. [25] A video of the exhibition can be found here. However, pay careful attention to page 18 wherein ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’, Art critic, writer, and veteran Huffington Post blogger Mat Gleason wrote the following about Dr. Friedman:

“It was an academic who made Dave Hickey relevant again. Julia Friedman saw that the old codger’s fitful Facebook encounters were more interesting than anything he’d written in two decades and, with the Sith Lord’s blessing, published his online rantings, putting him back in that limelight he craves, and clearing a path for herself as one of art’s top thinkers as well.”

As I understand it that makes: The Journal of Art Historiography + Professor Claire Farago + ‘’Coagula Art Journal’’ (a notable wiki agent) + Mat Gleason + Eric Minh Swenson (another notable wiki agent) = more than 2 more qualifiers in my recent quick search. Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The noteworthiness of a statement is baked into its pedigree. For example, if Mat Gleason were to be important, he would have his own article. He doesn't just write for Coagula—he's its main writer and the journal's WP article cites several sources referring to it as a tabloid (not quite reliable for statements of fact). The journal itself is a blog and doesn't come from a history of production quality. I'd like to take a look anyway. Isn't it supposed to be a free PDF download? Where did you find the article in question? czar 13:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing. There has been WP:Canvassing [26] by the article's creator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If you check the times and dates you will find I was already at said article and editing it before that editor ever left a note on my talk page. In fact I found the article was at AFD when I looked at the visual arts article alert page found here: [27] The alert page is where I heard of the article. I decided to edit the article before I commented on the AFD. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New page creator makes another mistake > now old news. Here was my humble apology a couple of days ago. I will be happy to extend it (belatedly) to you Xxanthippe. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Summary of the The Times Literary Supplement review so much in question. Since so many of you were interested in this TLS document, but don't have access to the "The leading international weekly for literary culture" I thought it was a shame. So I thought I would post a review summary for you -- or a review of a review if you will. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[These new books] are best understood as reflections on Marshall McLuhan’s famous epigram, “the medium is the message”. The medium in question here is the internet, specifically Facebook, and the messages are those of postmodernism: the triumph of image over identity, the dominance of representation over reality, and the demise of rational judgement in the evaluation of art.
Wasted Words presents us with Hickey’s daily threads…a vintage that’s gone sour…which are allowed to meander through their courses and reprinted in their entirety…A “companion volume”, Dust Bunnies, consists of Hickey’s most memorable epigrams [edited] from their context [by Julia Friedman]…Both books modernize the aphoristic tradition in the manner of Nietzsche and Adorno: pithy observations of quotidian minutiae replace totalizing claims to absolute truth.
It might seem that [these] texts vindicate the idealistic view of social media as a newly democratic mode of discourse, in which neither reputational nor institutional authority can wield their traditional heft. Technology may appear to have swept away the intellectual elitism that distorted the twentieth-century art world, leaving us free to enjoy what Julia Friedman, the editor of Wasted Words, calls “the transition from a critical to a post-critical society”.
[What these books] actually reveal…is…very far from their appearance…“Did any of you whiz-kids out there see this trainwreck coming? Of course none of [the] interlocutors did see it coming and, more to the point, neither did Hickey. We might profitably ask, why not?
In the twenty-first century…media of representation have achieved practical power over the reality they once claimed to represent.
[To Julia Friedman’s full credit, these books call into question] why should such a committed advocate of performativity [Hickey] lament the current state of the art world, or decry the postmodern condition in general? And, these books suggest that Hickey now regards the victory [i.e. a totally commercialized art world] as pyrrhic. Wasted Words confronts the consequences of that position.
The conclusion to which these [ Julia Friedman ] books point is that, in the “post-critical age”, logos is no longer the enemy. Indeed, logos has been overthrown by eidola. The manipulation of persona, brands, multiple identities and images that the internet simultaneously reflects and facilitates does not have a liberating but an oppressive effect. Wasn’t that supposed to be a good thing?

Seem to be a few passing mentions of subject. Notability requires multiple in-depth treatments. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Xxanthippe. The above "summary" is just a thumbnail summary -- that's all -- from the review in the prestigious publication. It is NOT the entire document. Publishing the entire review would be against international copyright law. In fact, the article is over 2,800 words and 37 paragraphs long. Additionally, I dare say I do believe any "content producer" publishing in the world today would give an index finger for a single mention in The Times Literary Supplement -- but Josh Milburn in the UK would have a better idea of that. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly notable, indisputably passes WP:GNG. This is a classic case of newbie-biting (and bizarrely determined newbie-biting, too), and it seems like Wikipedia might have lost a new editor for it. This is the sort of thing editors should be able to be sanctioned for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Drover's Wife. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:1
Keep, as it has enough good sources for notability. I think the main problem with the article is its nauseating promotional tone. This is an academic in her 40s, but it sounds like an article for Nobel pize winner. There's a lot of puffery going on. The long list of universities she has taught at in the lede is normal for pretty much all academics-- most of those gigs were probably just early career jobs-- take what you can get gigs for a few courses paid at $7000 a piece. In any case, keep and rewrite.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you HappyValleyEditor and I, of course, agree: esp concerning "the long list of universities" and "take what you can get"! Therefore, if nobody else makes said changes shortly after this AfD, with your permission (since it is your idea), I certainly will make those changes. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wwwwhatupprrr, but you do not need anyone's permission to make changes. Nobody owns any articles or ideas here. Now back to the AfD discussion.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is an example of why various Wikiprojects on women are necessary. In contrast, a new two-sentence stub about some remote and unheard of dry riverbed probably wouldn't even be challenged. This article gets all the basics correct and has provided sources, and credible external links. She's obviously received a decent amount of media exposure in her career. And, yet, a couple above have the audacity to suggest deleting the article and redirecting it to a subsection of an article about a male art critic? Oh, give me a break! Women have come so far, and some days it's like women haven't advanced at all. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view. I have made the suggestion elsewhere that there is a need for a policy debate about whether notability standards for female BLPs should be set lower than those for male ones. If that were to become formal policy, then this BLP would be likely to be kept easily and there would be no need for the destructive AfD debates that have taken place around this issue recently, as with the BLPs created at the unfortunate University of Regina edit-a-thon.[28] Comments from feminist editors on this matter would be particularly welcome. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Maile's last two claims, she literally edited a book about him. Let's not use the lack of non-promotional, in-depth, reliable coverage on Friedman as a measure of the march of history. czar 13:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered December 2012 JAVA extended article about Friedman: Dear Editors, have discovered another -- more in-depth and precise -- full-length article, entitled Julia Friedman's Artistic Vision, also by Jenna Duncan, about Julia Friedman in JAVA magazine from December 2012. I would like to share it with you. I discovered the lengthy article here...on this webpage. It has alot of interesting material which I hope many editors can enjoy. More information about this article can be found in the article's TALK page. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just promotional PR: not independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(Ping Xxanthippe, Czar). Java Magazine as a source appears to be sufficiently independent and reliable (though WP:PRIMARY for the two articles). Editor is Robert Sentinery, xref this and this from Phoenix New Times. PDF shows multiple editors. This suggests an independent interviewer is chosen. Magazine is a monthly and has published since 1994. Primary market is Phoenix, but that's a major city/metropolitan area. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Java is a local paper covering local art events, so I wouldn't use its article on a visiting professor towards the prof's notability. (If the WP page already existed, Java is a better source than her personal page, but not much better.) czar 13:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: For those voting keep on WP:GNG grounds, is there a specific criterion listed at any specific notability guideline — including but not limited to WP:NACADEMIC (with significant curatorship counting for ACADEMIC#1), WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ANYBIO — or is it instead (for example) a broad WP:NPOINTS keep? (The reliable secondary evidence appears to be the TLS, the Farago paras on her chapter in Leonardo, and probably her photo-appearance in Art Stars/Coagula with blurb, with other evidence including the Observer and Java mostly primary). Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess that I don't fully understand your question, but you've got a pretty weird definition of "primary". Citing a discussion of her books/research along with a brief interview of her published on the website of a reputable newspaper (and written, as far as I can tell, by a reputable journalist) is hardly the same as citing her CV or personal webpage. I'm honestly baffled by all the delete votes here; there is article after article about her work in mainstream newspapers and specialist magazines. What more do people want? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LG_Williams_(3rd_nomination), [29], [30]. May be coincidental, but I'm out. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough sources to show notability and passing GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an undisclosed conflict of interest editing going on here. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. After reviewing the evidence presented for notability, I find it to be inadequate by Wikipedia's standards. For really notable art critics, take a look at Ernst Gombrich, Kenneth Clark, Erwin Panofsky. All male, you say. Take then a look at Joan Evans (art historian). All these have far greater achievements than the subject does at present. Of course that may change with time but WP:Not a crystal ball. There also appears to be doubt about the integrity of several of the keep edits, which makes me think that it will be best to delete the BLP and recreate it if circumstances become more propitious. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- No on is suggesting (and no one has to suggest) that the article's subject is the most notable art critic in the world. The question is whether she is sufficiently notable, which, based on third party coverage of her work, she does seem to be. And whose "keep edits" do you doubt the "integrity" of, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at user:Lemongirl1942's comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Doublespeak. If you are making an accusation, make it. If you are musing idly, go and bother some blogger. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:Civil to editors who are doing their best to apply Wikipedia's standards of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't make spurious accusations in an attempt to avoid answering straightforward questions. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have difficulty understanding when you are being uncivil, Josh Milburn. Stating that Xxanthippe is engaged in doublespeak and suggesting s/he "go and bother some blogger" i.e. get lost is pretty clearly uncivil. Likewise, suggesting that Xxanthippe is making "spurious accusations" to avoid answering a question is also uncivil. The guidelines clearly state to comment on the article not the editor. Of course, those "spurious" allegations in fact are pointing to well-argued cases of COI and sockpuppetry, and Wwwwhatupprrr is now blocked indefinitely. This article is clearly written as a promotional vehicle and/or conceptual art project by Julia Friedman and LG Williams. freshacconci talk to me 18:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have difficulty in understanding when you are being patronising. And, a word of advice, if you're going to be patronising, it's in your best interest to be right. The spurious accusation was that I was being uncivil, nothing about anyone else. The doublespeak is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Calling a spade a spade is not incivility. If you think differently, then good for you. I don't really care. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per request on my talk page. Normally a discussion with this amount of participation should be closed as no consensus, but due to active WP:SPI and WP:COI investigations, no harm with leaving this open for another week. SST flyer 01:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 01:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was already more or less in agreement with Xxanthippe's comments above. Then I looked up the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr and have read it carefully. I find the evidence presented by Lemongirl942 there persuasive that we are likely dealing with a carefully planned external COI/PROMO effort here. We should not reward such behavior. In cases where notability appears to be borderline/doubtful, that certainly means that we have to go with the "delete" option. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I can see here being notable at some point, but I don't think the references indicate it at the moment. Redirect to Dave_Hickey#Wasted_Words:_The_Essential_Dave_Hickey_Online_Compilation. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search reveals hardly any sources beyond social media. The TLS article mentions her but is not enough to establish notability. I'd say this was WP:TOOSOON. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the comments about sockpuppetry by Rebb below. This is unfortunately also a Speedy Deletion G5 candidate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note In addition to the COI case against Wwwwhatupprrr, it should be pointed out that this article's creator, Wwwwhatupprrr, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, part of an ongoing promotional campaign/art project involving Julia Friedman and artist LG Williams (Friedman's apparent real life partner). I won't strike Wwwwhatupprrr's comments as is customary with sock accounts in AfGs, as I believe this is an unusual circumstance. Others may disagree. freshacconci talk to me 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am on the fence about notability, and, were notability the only issue here, I would likely vote for retention, but discouraging sockpuppetry and manipulation—especially when a financial motive is in play—is a worthwhile endeavor. Wwwwhatupprrr's behavior is beyond the pale, especially his deliberate, sophisticated exploitation of the community's sensitivities about gender. As a woman who cares very much about women's representation on Wikipedia, I cannot begin to tell you how angry this makes me.
My position is solidly grounded in policy: per CSD criterion G5, an article with only one significant author may be deleted, regardless of merit, simply because that author was a sockpuppet; this article is questionably notable, has had few substantive edits by others, and was created by someone whose misbehavior went far beyond sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid editing. Rebb ing 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In view of the above sock information, I've stricken my comments above, as well as stricken the "support". I now believe the article should be deleted. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginal, at best, notability combined with COI socking for financial gain. Jbh^Talk 23:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse CSD G5 Jbh ^Talk 12:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The attempt to get different standards for deletion for articles on males and females is just a horrible idea. We need indepdent sources, and I am not convinced we have enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am echoing the preceding observations. The socking is especially troublesome. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My thought are similar to what Rebbing articulated above. Overall, this is a borderline case and (in ordinary circumstances), I would have probably recommended a redirect as there are not enough independent secondary sources to establish notability. However, the socking and the unwillingness to disclose the COI is extremely troublesome, not to mention the personal attacks. The history of sockpuppetry indicates that we are dealing with a long time POV pushing editor who is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather to promote themselves. This kind of behaviour should not be encouraged. What particularly ticked me off was playing on the sensitivities of the community about gender and using it for promoting their own interests. It wasted a whole lot of time and created bad blood among longtime members of the community. Let's stop this right now. I recommend a delete under CSD G5 - article created by a blocked user in violation of a block. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: Link to COI case and Sockpuppet investigation page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:14, 11 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Riley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nearly G4 material too and I would've also PROD too as there's nothing here actually suggesting the needed solid independent notability and my searches have found nothing better at all. After deleting, I suggest Redirecting to the likely search of Matthew Reilly. This is also another case where the author was only ever active to this one article. Notifying past user Rayman60 who made several changes. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nondescript corporate puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If redirected, this should go to Matt Riley. Peter James (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 7 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. J04n(talk page) 16:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmber[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Zimmber"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

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

Questionable notability. Might fail WP:SUSTAINED. Ringbang (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Keep~~ – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of sources available about the company, such as those using the Google News link atop and additional custom source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: That's as may be, but the coverage seems to be all about fundraising. If the newsworthiness of this young company is about fundraising, how can it pass WP:SUSTAINED? —Ringbang (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still simply a somewhat newly founded company with only expected news coverage being found, therefore nothing actually outstandingly convincing at News and WP:INDAFD so far, overall it's simply not enough and that's not surprising to see. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - As mentioned, the Keep vote only gives expected amounts of coverage we would see from this type of subject, an Indian company with not even 2 years of history, and from a country who is known for massive amounts of expected coverage for attention or including sometimes fundraising, other finance-boosting schemes. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. articles on new companies that have references only covering fundraising should be deleted as a general rule, because such coverage is totally indiscriminate, and not only in India.. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG: check out WP:NEWCOMPANY. Nevertheless, I have changed my !vote above to "weak keep". Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there can be exceptions, and I have consistently opposed making a total ban on companies with less than a certain length of existence. If the company has accomplished something sufficiently important to get RS coverage, then it can be notable. If it has only raised money , its otherwise. I do not consider any of the sources in this article RS for anything. And the entire contents of the article except for the funding is an advertisement for their services. And I think our views on articles such as these have stiffened considerably since that essay was written in 2008. I know my own view has certainly changed, in response to the deluge of attempts to use WP for advertising. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 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. Sufficient consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Donnellan[edit]

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

Still questionable at best for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG since my searches are not finding anything convincingly better at all (the only link I've found at all was 1 at Books) and the longest thing he basically had was 7 episodes of Batman Beyond for Virtual Announcer, not a lead character, BTW, so there's simply nothing actually suggesting anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as insufficiently notable actor; possibly too soon. Quis separabit? 14:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notalbe video game voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another IMDB-attributed article of unrecognizable name voice actor. — Wylie pedia 18:29, 10 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mazzotta[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a television producer and director, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown. As always, a film producer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- RS coverage, verifying a WP:CREATIVE pass, must be present for him to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I merged in the stuff from the company article and found some sources, but it's still pretty iffy overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overall there's nothing convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, does not meet notability guidelines 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

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. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic 47[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, could you describe the process you used? The article explicitly states why it is notable. I wonder if you even read it. It is true that there is not much information, however that doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is always better to expand an article rather than delete it. Why don't you try visiting a library and adding some information if you are so concerned, instead of deleting other people's hard work? prat (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow, Pratyeka, that's a little uncalled for. Short articles are not an issue. It states why the contributor considered it notable - that's different to it being notable. I can't see that it meets any part of WP:NOTABILITY. If you can, wonderful, please just note here why you think it meets which part of notability, and I'm always happy to withdraw a nomination if it seems my assessment was wrong. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you feel such a comment (requesting positive contribution instead of destruction) is 'uncalled for'. You have effectively created this time-wasting bureaucracy around your suggestion to delete an article, an article someone else took the time to write. If you don't have a clear line of reasoning beyond vague and subjective policy waving on why this is undoubtedly a great idea, or the will to improve the same, then why are you expecting people to thank you profusely for your thankless and selfless act of removing real information from Wikipedia? Do you know what staggeringly destructive effect such acts have on the motivation of contributors? Honestly, I am uncertain from what psychology your sense of deletionist entitlement derives; but though we are supposed to "assume good faith" it is hard to see it as one of sharing, collaboratively building, and assuming good faith. Instead, to me, it appears you are attempting to vindicate your destructive and ill-considered actions through emulated shock and awe "Oh my god this person is talking to me honestly and openly and criticizing my actions from the perspective of motivation, reasoning, and overall communitky/social effect! How uncouth!". Well, what did you expect. Probably just to slide another hard-written article off in to deletion with no complaints. Well I am complaining. This deletion crap is totally out of hand. Anyway, now that we have all wasted our time, can we just leave the article as is please? Perhaps you could consider taking a break from deleting articles on supposed notability grounds for awhile, or permanently? Thanks. prat (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a review at 'Cruising World' & added it as an external link in the article. Beyond that it was forum mentions, nothing significant. Gab4gab (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was infinitely more helpful than the rest of this time-wasting deletion discussion, which from here feels like it's stealing a bunch of people's time under threat of removing real work. Honestly, the next person to read the article who cares can expand it - clearly there is no time pressure. Why add a deletion discussion? This deletion crap is totally out of hand. prat (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also am not finding anything else better and there's certainly no better context. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of reviews and forum posts do not amount to substantive coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:42, 12 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shaibu Husseini[edit]

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

Only one line of text. Can't really see the notability Cssiitcic (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject passes WP:GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the references. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as article contains multiple reliable secondary sources that discusses him in significant independent detail (passes WP:GNG). Many of the phrases used to describe him by the references given are also pointers to notability. He has also held national theatrical positions, which are all claims to notability. It's a pity WP:JOURNALIST was not approved by the Wikipedia community, that would have been his clearest route to notability. Darreg (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with references to significant reliable source coverage so that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 7 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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary (Luke Coles)[edit]

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

Only one weak reference. One line of context. Rather un-notable topic Cssiitcic (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines 04:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May have been part of a walled garden that included the speedily deleted, Luke Coles Book Series. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sole reference is self-published, no indication underlying works are notable, so no appropriate merge target is evident. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: character in non-notable book series with deleted article. PamD 07:05, 6 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, nominated by a blocked sock, the only other vote by a user who has 14 edits, all made on the day of their registration.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsul Ulama Islamic Academy[edit]

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

~~Notability~~ • Arts Rescuer 23:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've searched GNews and Google, both reveal zero coverage on the school. Searches indicate that the school has no notability whatsoever, and the article is a stub anyways. I agree with the nominator that the article in question should be deleted for now, until further coverage is established. CycoPenguin (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:23, 5 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. Sufficient consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariyel Kubani[edit]

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

Random college student turned militant. Not covered in English or Arabic press, with a few brief mentions in the Persian press. Star Garnet (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines 04:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the loss of youth in war is often tragic but not always notable. EricSerge (talk) 17:23, 9 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. Sufficient consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Talianko[edit]

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

The article basically says it all, a young student filmmaker with my searches finding nothing better at all and there's nothing at all convincing from this information for applicable notability. This frankly should've been deleted sooner as there's not only been enough time for any improvements of his career but there wasn't anything at all keeping it overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sourced BLP simply for failing WP:BIO and WP:BASIC... and NOT for it being unimproved or forgotten. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article supported by the subject's involvement in several student competitions, which do not support notability. At best WP:TOOSOON, but I can see nothing to support WP:FILMMAKER or wider notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student filmmakers are almost never notable as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 5 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Mamuyac[edit]

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

Fails NHOOPS, and the only coverage I'm finding is game scores where his contribution is mentioned (no in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG). Primefac (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing at all suggesting the needed applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High school basketball stars rarely pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 5 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. clear consensus after relistings DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Groove[edit]

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

I came across this via the associated AfD for Francois Garcia. To put it frankly, this article is a mess of promotional puffery and original research.

Normally I'd redirect things of this nature but what's concerning is that there's actually very little out there to confirm that this movie is even real. The article claims that this was released in 2007... but I can't see where it's sold anywhere and the official blog says that the film will likely never release. This isn't really encouraging, considering that the blog links to the producer/writer's YT account, which is filled with fairly random stuff that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual movie.

I'm arguing for the article to be WP:TNT'd, since this would require a complete and total re-write to become neutral. There's also the problem that we can't actually guarantee that any of the stuff in this article is legit, given that the film has never released. This is especially problematic when you consider that the article is claiming stuff about a studio break-in and essentially says that Haim remained on drugs throughout the entire filming process. I'm aware that Haim is dead, but this is a pretty contentious claim considering that there's zero coverage in RS to back this up. That's why I'd say that this should be deleted without the history - this is the type of thing that families can get sue happy over. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. What matters is that these are unsourced allegations about some pretty serious matters that, if Haim were still alive, would solidly violate WP:BLP.

There's really nothing out there even if we count in the primary sources and things in places Wikipedia would consider to be unreliable. Most of it is actually just junk hits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now if the film comes out this can be re-created but without the puffery or unsourced claims unless said claims have been widely reported on in independent and reliable sources. I'm actually halfway tempted to nominate this as a G11 speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the article states that the film was released direct-to-video in 2007 — which is a class of film that is very commonly somewhere between difficult and completely impossible to reliably source, so the sourceability problem isn't as mystifying as it might seem. But that's not an excuse for any of this: our inclusion criteria for films do not grant every film that's ever been made at all an automatic inclusion freebie just because it exists — rather, if we can't properly source that the film is notable for some specific reason, then it just doesn't get to have a Wikipedia article. But on a ProQuest search, I found just two glancing namechecks of this film's existence in coverage of Haim's late-2000s comeback effort, and nothing that would count toward notability. And Tokyogirl is entirely correct, as well, that just because Corey Haim is dead does not give us free rein to publish unsourced claims that he spent the whole film shoot strung out on drugs. The fact that we have a special policy governing the inclusion of unverifiable or contentious information in BLPs does not mean that we're suddenly permitted to publish potentially libellous unsourced claims about a BDP — it's a claim that cannot be in a Wikipedia article without proper sourcing for it regardless of whether the subject is living or dead. And after reviewing Haim's main biography to see if it contributes any sourcing that could salvage this, what I see is a (deadlinked) press release from its own production company and a (deadlinked) article from the Montreal Mirror which is about him rather than the film per se — and nothing at all that would aid in supporting the drug use claims. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The overall impression I got from the blog is that the film was supposed to release in 2007, but no release actually occurred. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself has horrendous problems as is, and there's no reasonable assertion of notability. From doing a bit of searching, I don't find anything to indicate that this film project has ever picked up (or, likely, will ever pick up) the kind of reliable source coverage needed to justify its own page. I agree completely. This really should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Beyond the problems within the article itself, upon a quick online search I have not found enough sources to support notability.Star Islington (talk) 18:26, 8 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. sufficient consensus that this is a sourced article, not a personal essay DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialization of love[edit]

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

This is largely a personal essay by the article creator (see first edit of 18 March 2015, which was his only contribution to Wikipedia). Nothing links to this article except the bios of two researchers mentioned: Eva Illouz and Arlie Russell Hochschild. Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTHOSTING, etc. — JFG ^talk 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is notable. The article provides a definition, has some refs, and doesn't seem to be a "I think that..." type of an essay that would be TNT-able. It's hardly perfect, but I think it's a passable C-class assessment wise. I don't see why it should be deleted. Being a WP:ORPHAN is not a valid reason, nor is the author being a WP:SPA an issue here, neither. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable and well known subject. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 10 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. Sufficient consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Howse[edit]

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

There's nothing particularly convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG as the article lists nothing along also with the sources, none of which suggest any actual solidity (the second link only mentions him once) and my searches have found nothing better at all. Notifying 2010 tagger Bearian. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the "speedy deletion" tag, and attempted to clean it up (six years ago), because it had an allegation of notability. There has been no substantial improvement since, and I see little evidence of notability. Thanks for pinging me. Bearian (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, as above, does not meet notability guidelines 04:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Delete no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 5 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elayne Angel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. WP:NOTINHERITED from husband Buck Angel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original author of the article, and also the person who requested the un-delete. The original article stood from 2005 until 2014 - nine years - when it was nominated for deletion under this same basis. I was inactive here at the time, and not aware of the deletion until recently, and unable to make a defense. The article was written as Elayne Angel is notable for her significant contributions to the Body Modification community, and as part of a larger project to clarify the history of that community. Her notability stood on that basis, prior to her marriage to Buck, which, I agree, is not a basis of her notability, as there is no substantial public relevance of their marriage to Elayne's work in area of her notability, and the novelty of the terms of their divorce do not rise to the level of notability - although someone with more interest and knowledge of divorce law/transgender issues might have a more useful opinion in that area than I do.

Also, as I am clearly currently in the process of a re-write of the article, both removing excess information and hopefully delivering proper citations to support the initial notability, I would appreciate having the space and time to do that re-write, and then, if someone who wants to argue that her contributions to that industry alone are not notable, a request for deletion might be more useful. It would be very helpful if someone with academic or historical knowledge of the body modification community, other than myself, would be the person making said argument. Glowimperial (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article relies on weak sources, reader profiles, and sources that only mention her in passing while focusing on the person she was married to. The net result is no indication of notability. The body piercing statements are not well sourced and do not indicate she is actually as notable in that field as claimed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would be better sources than the ones currently used? Are there texts besides Ward's and Modern Primitives that would be more authoritative sources for this field? Glowimperial (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as I am still not seeing anytbing actually convincing for solid independent notability, there's information and sources but still nothing noticeably convincing. Notifying 1st AfDer KDS444. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's unclear if the delete !voters following the nomination performed any source searching. The commentary thus far comes across as possibly basing notability only upon sources present in the article. For more information, see WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nothing indicates that any of the Delete voters have done source searching or have any historic or technical knowledge of the topic. None have responded in any way to inquiry - both before and after the article has undergone significant revision, including removal of extraneous material related to subject's marriage. 21:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep

She pierced Lenny Kravitz's penis. [31] (and further reported by [32])
She wrote a book "The Piercing Bible" which seems to be have received attention. Google scholar shows it has been used as a reference multiple times.
She was a former president of APP [33] She works in a niche field but it seems among the piercing community, she has some notability. [34],[35],[36] Of course, more authoritative sources would be preferred here.
Looking at the situation overall, including the fact that she was a former wife of Buck Angel, I am leaning towards a keep. I have also noticed that the articles of spouses of famous people are usually kept (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priscilla Chan (philanthropist)). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only spouses of famous people who are kept routinely are those of heads of state -- I've sometimes argued we should be a little more flexible, but that has never had consensus in general, though there have been occasional exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the subject of the article is primarily notable for her contributions to the body modification industry. She is one of the seminal figures in the industry and the author of its primary/only text on professional practice. Her marriage is not the basis of her notability. The article has been updated since being put up for deletion, and makes bare mention of her marriage, and only because of its legal novelty/controversy. Glowimperial (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten - the "inherited notability" thing is surely a valid concern, but a red herring in this instance - this person is clearly notable in her own right in a completely different field (the rewritten article makes this clearer). Fosse 8► 15:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person appears to be notable in their own right. Tom29739 ^[talk] 21:10, 15 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. Michig (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Alexander (actor)[edit]

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

Apparently only best known for 5 episodes of Babylon 5 and there's basically nothing else actually convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG, my searches have found nothing better than mentions for Babylon 5 at Books. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is kind of tough one to decide, but I'm leaning more toward the keep side. This article in the Los Angeles Times is a long, detailed article about his career up to 1992 and includes mention of Spaced Invaders. This article in The A.V. Club describes him as a "go to actor for [Babylon 5]", which makes me think his roles in B5 were substantial enough to contribute to his notability. This article also mentions him, and this one specifically critiques his acting in the series. Besides that, there are quite a few theater reviews in the Los Angeles Times, including [37], [38], and [39], among others. I think that, with all the sources added up, he probably does satisfy WP:NACTOR. This doesn't count all the trivial mentions scattered throughout Google Books, which I'm not really sure are enough to count toward establishing notability. But they're available if anyone wants to spend more time scouring through them than I did. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the above mentioned articles provide significant reliable source coverage directly about the actor, particularly The Los Angeles Times , so that WP:BASIC is fulfilled. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think enough sources have been found to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:05, 12 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. J04n(talk page) 13:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis C. Hammond[edit]

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

no evidence of notability -- still just assistant professor; Google Scholar shows several fairly well cited papers but not enough for notability in this field. NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur with DGG again, nothing here at all for any actual notability and nothing convincing of any other convincing signs otherwise at all. SwisterTwister talk 18:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to SPAIR. The subject may not be notable, but a technique he developed is. See this AfD discussion for more information about the suggested merge target's notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's nothing here to actually sensibly merge as there's nothing to suggest his own article anytime soon, thus because of being best known for the item, still delete as I voted. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because SPAIR only has a single mention of the subject in the first sentence of the lead. The provision of addition background information regarding the subject, such as that in the lead of the Dennis C. Hammond article would certainly and sensibly enhance and improve the merge target article. For example, information about the subject being a plastic surgeon and assistant professor of surgery at Michigan State University would be a fine addition. Also of note is that a merge was suggested at Talk:Dennis C. Hammond on 2 June 2014, with the nominator (obviously) supporting a merge of SPAIR to the subject's article and one user opposing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, I have added some basic biographical content to the lead of the SPAIR article; my merge !vote still stands, though. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to pass the notability requirements for medical doctors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with SPAIR which was created by same (probably paid) editor directly, without going through AfC. Would not have passed AfC due to lack of independent reliable sources with substantive discussion. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 10 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Hathor[edit]

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

I would've PRODed too, nothing here for any actual convincing notability even considering its detail which is not as impressive when you start examining it, the sources are also not convincing at all so, together with my searches finding nothing better at all, there's nothing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 6 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 speedy deleted per CSD A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. The artist's article had been deleted long ago. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chairmoo[edit]

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,, there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article , Secondly the references on this article are not reliable Samat lib (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing particularly suggesting the needed stability and solidity for independent notability thus nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 13 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.