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 this chemical substance is sufficiently notable qua substance. Whether any content should be (re-)added concerning medical applications, etc, is an editorial matter subject to the relevant content policies.  Sandstein  11:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fasoracetam[edit]

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

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

There is a wave of interest in so-called nootropic molecules that people buy on the internet and consume (!). For this molecule, there are no secondary sources - see this pubmed search - so all we have are primary sources from the biomedical literature. These sources are notoriously unreliable and we cannot have an entire article based on them - our mission is to provide the public with accepted knowledge per WP:NOT. So this fails WP:NOTABILITY as there are insufficient reliable sources for us to be able to say anything meaningful about this compound. Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Only three refs, all from 1997–1999. It was "originally developed by the Japanese pharmaceutical company Nippon Shinyaku to treat Alzheimer's disease but, after being put through clinical trials, was shelved for efficacy reasons" [1], and as of 2012 was being researched by a Dr. Hakon Hakonarson of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for use with ADHD [2]. Has there been no solid information/data/research since then? If not, I would lean delete, agreeing with the nominator that Wikipedia needs to provide accepted knowledge. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not seeing much. Even google books barely mentions it [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in fact, an Unquestionable keep. There is a difference between chemistry and medicine. google books is not the place to look for chemistry, but Google Scholar, where there are multiple papers. For chemistry, MEDRS is quite irrelevant, except for actual therapeutic claims. We have usually not made WP articles on chemicals where there is only one scientific paper, but herethere are more: Tetrahedron Letters [4], traditionally the most important single journal in synthetic organic chemistry; Crystal Growth & Purification [5] from the American Chemical Society; Il Farmaco, [6] ; Journal of Thoracic Oncology [7]; Current Pharmaceutical Design, [8]; discussions in terms of comparison with similar drugs in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology [9]; Medicinal chemistry /reviews [10], and about 20 other articles and at least 50 patents. -- I'm only thru half the google scholar search results and I haven't even checked for papers cited them. (Yes, I have looked at each of the papers or at least the abstracts, though I have not read any of them thoroughly). Jytdog is correct that there is also a good deal of speculative literature on possible applications, but when he and DocJames want to not cover it for that reason they're confusing medicine with the totality of science. And even in medicine Jytog is also wrong that we cover only "accepted" medicine--what is correct is that we write our articles from the standpoint of accepted medicine, but we cover everything that is significantly discussed, even by nonscientists, even by the ignorant. Saying otherwise is a total misconception of the principles of the pseudoscience guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG well hm. You seem to have misread me. Which is surprising. I am not talking about FRINGE. I am talking about accepted knowledge in science. There is a real problem with reproducibility in the primary scientific literature, especially in the biomedical arena. I hope you are not contesting that. Many of the papers you cite there are chemical; a few of them are biomedical. With a drug candidate, the biomedical results are the "so what" that makes something notable or not. I don't mess around much with pure chemical content. I know there is value there. If there is something really notable chemically about Fasoracetam - some reaction that was really freaking hard that somebody figured out, then fine - let there be an article about it on that basis. But the current article is based on its putative biological effects, and while there are indeed several primary sources about that, there are no reviews that are included in the pubmed index. That leaves us with two issues. First, we just have a bunch of primary sources that are thin reeds on which to hang a presumption of "accepted knowledge". Secondly and most importantly, nobody in the relevant biomedical field (not neuroscience, not neurology, not even medicinal chemistry) has found it important enough to write a review on it that was published in a journal good enough/relevant enough to be pubmed indexed. So we don't have a guide to which of the primary sources should be depended on, and which turned out to be dead ends or irreproducible. You know as well as I do that many "dud" papers are never retracted; they are just ignored by the field. So this is a pure notability argument - this substance fails NOTABILITY with regard to its being a candidate drug; we don't have sufficient reliable sources with which to build an article. Does that make more sense? Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure some some papers have been retracted so in some sense all are dubious, but this applies just as much to systematic reviews, which have had a disconcerting habit of contradicting each other. But what are the odds that an article published in Tetrahedron letters is fake? If the article were saying that this is a cure for whatever, your criticisms would be correct. But the chemical has been discussed in multiple sources that meet the criterion for Reliable sources in organic chemistry, and that's the GNG. Articles dealing with medicinal chemistry to not have to meet MEDRS unless they make therapeutic claims, in which case that art of the article needs to be removed. Frankly, MEDRS is an unfortunately necessary compromise specialism of WP:RS to sort out confusion--it would really be much more in keeping with the principle of NPOV if we didn't need it, but we arguably do because of the widespread public illiteracy in that field combined with the widespread commercial quackery. It has its use, and don't dilute it by trying to use it for everything that might be potentially applicable. We have enough problems keeping the medical articles clean. And do you really think we are doing the public a service by rejecting all information on candidate medicines, which by definition are not yet accepted. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are talking right past me/around me. This is not an article about a chemical, qua chemical. It is an article about a drug candidate which means its biological activity is essential. You are just going right around that... and I very strongly disagree with how you are describing MEDRS. MEDRS is 100% in line with OR, VERIFY, NPOV, and RS in calling strongly for us to use secondary sources and to use primary sources only with caution. WP:MED is not any kind of walled garden, and I am not applying MEDRS in some weird way. The point here is I don't see an article is valid that is only built on primary sources, especially not biomedical ones. If there no or almost no reviews on this chemical, it fails NOTABILITY. We don't synthesize the primary literature in WP - we summarize accepted knowledge... Jytdog (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, just for the sake of article history and references (some of which I referred to in my Comment above), this is the article before the date it was AfDed: [11]. It has been trimmed per various wiki rationales. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination seems to be based upon WP:NOTEVERYTHING. That is supported by an arbcom statement of principle that "An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details." That doesn't seem to be a reason to delete an entire page; instead it's just an endorsement of our summary style.

  This chemical clearly exists and it doesn't seem difficult to find review-class sources of reasonable quality which say things like "some new drugs such as nefiracetam and fasoracetam appear promising." This is one of a family of such drugs and the family is covered in sources such as Design and Study of Piracetam-like Nootropics, Controversial Members of the Problematic Class of Cognition-Enhancing Drugs. The worst case would therefore be to merge into some wider article about the family such as racetam. It is our editing policy to retain such content in a constructive way rather than deleting it. Andrew D. (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I noticed this certainly seemed notable and acceptable enough. Improvements are certainly encouraged. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete [12] PubMed search does not show much for secondary sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to Draft namespace. I can see why some want this removed, if it ends up being removed I guess several other piracetam derivatives should have their pages investigated for removal as well. Either way, moving to the Draft namespace would be preferable to deletion. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After discounting all the sockpuppets, nobody wants to keep this.  Sandstein  11:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Norco[edit]

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

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

Major contributor User:JellyfishFilms deprodded after User:Liz prodded, but I think Liz was right -- here's her prod summary: "Non-notable rapper. Even his personal scandal isn't very notable. It doesn't appear that his releases have received much attention or sales." IagoQnsi (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: JellyfishFilms has added a comment in response to the AfD on the talk page. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this seems convincing, simply seems the expected entertainment events including the apparent Kylie Jenner connections. SwisterTwister talk 01:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person is relevant and spoken about regularly in the news. I performed an extensive series of searches and found several articles that verify Bobo Norco's relevancy. Also SwisterTwister is inaccurate, there is one one article that mentions Bobo Norco and Kylie Jenner. IagoQnsi2 talk 17:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The user posting the above remark is probably a sockpuppet of User:JellyfishFilms (not to mention blatantly copying my username). I have reported them at WP:UAA and opened a sockpuppet investigation. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are some sources about him, specifically some gossip and showbiz news.Berti118 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A lot more sources have been added to the article. Although a lot of the sources appear to be from somewhat reliable sources (namely, the sources about the scandal with Tyga), it's important to note that these sources do little to contribute to Bobo Norco's notability. Rather, they seem to indicate the notability of Tyga, and Bobo Norco is just some random person who got mixed up in the scandal. In fact, most of those sources share a quote that calls Bobo Norco a "relatively unknown rapper". Another new claim to notability is some reliable sources for the song "Roll Call - 49ers Anthem", but the sources appear to care more about the song's main artist, E-A-Ski, or they just call the artists "some local rappers" and barely mention Bobo Norco. There's also a claim that Bobo Norco is worth $4.5 million and has sold half a million records, but the source appears to be completely unreliable -- I think this claim is blatantly false. -IagoQnsi (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:IagoQnsi is spreading accusations on several of User:JellyfishFilms submissions whch have been approved for years. I believe he has a personal agenda with either the user or Bobo Norco and he states that the claim of 4.5 million dollars is blatantly with no proof that it is. PatRoller2 (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PatRoller2: I have no agenda other than to make Wikipedia great. Just because a page was not deleted for several years doesn't mean it was approved, and doesn't mean we can't decide to delete it now -- this is the first AFD for this article so there is no history of community consensus approving of this article. And also, all significant claims (such as the claim that Norco is worth $4.5mil) must be verified with reliable sources. The burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim, not upon the person contesting it. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bobo Norco appears to be relevant and discussed regularly in entertainment and music news. Sources look credible. JoeMahms talk 10:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Clerk note: IagoQnsi2, PatRoller2, JoeMahms, and WikiTorch2 are all suspected sockpuppets of JellyfishFilms; see the SPI I started for details: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JellyfishFilms. -IagoQnsi (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Clerk note: This is another false accusation from IagoQnsi. I have no affiliation with JellyFishFilms -WikiTorch2 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to New Years Day (band)#Band members. czar 01:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Costello[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Hardly notable as a single subject. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 21:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to band as there are no apparent signs of an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The strongest argument (IMHO) is from Fenix down. Applying a uniform standard across all similar articles is a good thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández[edit]

List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable list of goals. These lists can be notable, for example if footballer is the top scorer of their country (in List of top international association football goal scorers by country), but there is no evidence why this footballer deserves a list. This per previous AfD for similar articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Gonzalo Higuaín and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by João Vieira Pinto and others. Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per previous precedent, not all footballers with international goals are deserving of stand-alone lists. This is one of those cases where it's just not notable enough. If Hernández scores 4 more goals and draws even with Jared Borgetti, then the list of goals would become notable as his country's top scorer, but WP:CRYSTAL. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - per what Jkudlick has said, he might very soon become the top scorer, and even if that is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, deleting and then very soon restoring the article seems wasteful.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  01:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I'm fine with the article being deleted but the content is usefull and should be merged to the main article. Aricle can be re-created if Chicharoto becomes Mexico's all time goalscorer. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95#International goals they should not be listed in main article. Qed237 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were also other discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#International goals and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96##International goals should be kept that didn't establish a consensus. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not as confident voting, but I'm leaning on delete as well. There isn't that much material in the article that can't be quickly replicated in the future. He'll most likely break the former record by achieving 47, but 5 might take a year or might not happen at all. I think it's WP:TOOSOON. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Merge - per Insertcleverphrasehere. CR7 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C. Ronaldo Aveiro: Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 95#International goals they should not be listed in main article. Qed237 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Recent AfD results have developed the consensus that these lists are only notable where the player concerned is or at one time was, their country's all time leading goalscorer. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nominator and Fenix's analysis. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sufi whirling. The topic is about a form of dance allegedly distinct from the religious practice of Sufi whirling and the Tanoura (dance), apparently itself a form of the Sufi practice. However, despite walls of texts, apparent sockpuppetry and lots of assertions, the editor(s?) who would retain the article has not cited one reliable source that would speak to the notability of this allegedly distinct practice, as described in WP:N. This leads me to discount their arguments for keeping. Consensus is therefore that this is not a notable topic suited for a separate article, and that the content related to the various whirling practices needs to be reorganized. I am therefore for the time being redirecting the page to the Sufi form, but editors may make whichever editorial changes including mergers or disambiguations that may eventually gain consensus.  Sandstein  11:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whirling[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Of this article's sources, one describes this dance only in its religious context, which is covered at Sufi whirling. All other sources are by or about one non-religious performer. One performer does not mean that this is a notable dance form or cultural phenomenon. Ibadibam (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whirling page is being deliberately created to distinguish and differentiate the page from whirling practices that have a religious intonation. Viapastrengo (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there's no evidence that such practice is notable and needs its own page. Couldn't this simply be covered by a section on secular dance in the Sufi whirling article? Ibadibam (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even in secular Sufi whirling, the traditional connotation and practice is limited to male performers. Second, Sufi whirlers make clear that the ritual is NOT to be considered a dance, whereas whirling dance artists explicitly define their artform as a dance. Given the religious/spiritual origins of Sufi whirling, and the highly controversial nature of dance in various Middle Eastern/Islamic traditions, the whirling page explicitly disclaims that it is purely an aesthetic dance form, versus some sort of a secular variant of Sufi whirling.38.29.152.83 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding comment signed as by 38.29.152.83 (talk · contribs) actually added by Viapastrengo (talk · contribs) [reply]

I understand that they are different topics. I'm saying that the topic covered at whirling is not notable, per Wikipedia:Notability, because it lacks coverage in independent sources. But it could still be mentioned in the other article, since they are related. Ibadibam (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All other sources except the Youtube video seemed to be about sufi whirling. As it happens the Youtube video specified that it's Tanoura. That piqued my curiousity and I googled it. As it happens, it has a page: Tanoura (dance). It's the same concept but performed elsewhere and a little differently. I'm not sure if the Youtube video is actually Tanoura or not, as Tanoura seems to be just like Sufi whirling except done in multicolored outfits. The Youtube video has Nicole McLaren (you'll run into this name a lot if you search for information about whirling) performing a slightly modified interpretation of the sufi dance. I don't know if whirling in itself is notable as a search for it produces 95% dervishes and Tanoura seems to just be a multicolor version of it. Maybe Sufi whirling could just be about the dance itself, Whirling, and yet even still mostly be about sufi whirling, possibly with an "also known as sufi whirling in the lead. _{(Changed my mind, a WP:SPLIT would probably be preferable, from the master whirling article.)} --Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — There are a variety of factors that would justify the article's inclusion and dislocation from related topics like Sufi whirling: (1) Sufi whirling and tanoura dances from the Middle East emphasize a religious or spiritual or meditational core, whereas the contemporary genre of whirling is not just a 'secular' version of Sufi spinning, but a completely different dance style altogether (I.e., non-repetitive choreographies) (2) a search of several whirling terms shows many influential choreographers and performers; (3) gender and cultural differences described in comments above are significant reasons by themselves to support a standalone page for this dance genre; (4) numerous national and international journals have covered "whirling" as a dance form distinct from Sufi whirling forms;", and (5) the fact that this dance is now apparently featured in large dance festivals and sustains entire dance troupes of regional and international notoriety suggests growing prominence. 128.177.108.246 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide links to the journals to which you refer. We're looking for significant coverage in reliable sources. Ibadibam (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - clearly notable per discussion above. 38.29.152.83 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• '"KEEP - Sufi spinning is religious. Tanoura and whirling are stage dances and have nothing to do with religion. Tanoura MUST use the typical egyptian tanoura skirt and specific music and movements, and usually egyptian male dancers perform it. Whirling is contemporary and has totally different choreographies, costumes and settings. Often performed by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.91.39 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
• Keep - Sufi is religious. Tanoura and whirling are stage dances. Tanoura must use the tanoura skirt and is folkloric. Male dancers perform it mainly. Whirling is contemporary and totaly different in choreography, music, costume. 188.155.91.39 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We saw some shows with whirling dances, both in Germany/Stuttgart and Switzerland/Zurich and other places, which were completely different in style, costumes and choreographies from the Dervish dances. We think there is a new dance style established called Whirling.188.155.91.39 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is "we"? There have now been three similar !votes from 188.155.91.39...are these three different users? Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment I realized that the current article is written from a fairly faulty perspective. Sufi whirling is the practice of the "whirling dance", but with a religious motif and style. Non-religious whirling in itself doesn't merit its own article but a merge. I think an article about the whirling dance would be merited, with mentions of 1. sufi, 2. tanoura and 3. "modern". Current article needs a heavy redo. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "current article" do you mean whirling or Sufi whirling? Thanks, Ibadibam (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whirling. Sufi whirling is a fairly large article and well-done, so if there were a master article, there would probably just be a WP:SPLIT (a Further information link) to the Sufi whirling article under the Sufi whirling subsection, maybe with a short summary (I'm unsure about the complete policy when it comes to WP:SPLIT). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Thank you Ibadim and Mr. Magoo for your inputs. I respectfully disagree though on the mixture and blending of these three topics under one article. Sufi whirling is not a dance in any sense, and for a sufi, the sema, their religious rite, is a way to reach the unio mystica, the unison with the divine, through movement. It is neither meant for an audience nor as a personal form of expression, both of which dance is. It is offensive for a sufi to be called dancer, and although the term "derwish dancer" is used, it is done so without the correct cultural understanding of a religious practice that originated in 13th century Konya, Turkey. In sharp contrast, whirling and tanoura are both dances, and whereas tanoura stems from Egypt and is practiced there as a folkloric dance, whirling shares solely part of the spinning technique with tanoura, but is apart from that alltogether different. Both styles are performed AND taught separately in the dance community worldwide. Dance festivals, dance schools, workshops and regular classes. A tanoura dancer would never call himself a whirling dancer and vice versa. The approach in both is even oppositional. Tanoura is only tanoura if performed with a tanoura, that typical Egyptian full-circle skirt. It is its main feature. There is a specific set of movements performed with that tanoura. The choreographies thus follow a certain strict pattern. Whirling is freed of all of this, some dancers do not even use a skirt of any sort at all, but wear trousers. Then the music is mainly Egyptian in tanoura, usually folkloric. To use a western song in a tanoura dance would be unthinkable. The same is true for fusion movement, prop or costume elements from other cultures. Therefore, these two dances are clearly distinct from one another in regards of 1. Who performs them, 2. For whom they are being performed, 3. Costumes, 4. Music, 5. Choreographical approach, 6. Props, 7. Where they are being performed, 8. Modern/folkloric traits et cetera. To merge whirli g and tanoura would be like merging jazz dance and hiphop, because they share some basic movement patterns. 38.29.152.83 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not vote multiple times. And the article for Sufi whirling states that it is a customary dance. It also pretty plainly is a dance, with nigh all sources also backing that up. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sufi whirling (or Sufi spinning) article appropriately begins with the description "Sufi whirling (or Sufi spinning) is a form of Sama or physically active meditation which originated among Sufis..." Later, the article continues to characterize it as a customary dance, but from the initial framing and the essence of the existing article, it is clear that this is not a dance.Viapastrengo (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can an article that describes an activity as a dance somehow simultaneously make it clear that it's not dance? Dance is not limited to entertainment – the many topics discussed at sacred dance attest to that. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I saw the dance several times on stage and its unique style should not be mixed up with any other dance. Finally, it is on Wikipedia, so I can send this link to my friends. 2A02:AA16:1102:EA80:E471:3FBE:2E1F:C55C (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

This has devolved into a travesty of a discussion, rife with sockpuppetry, repeat !voting and a lot of comments that distract from the grounds I gave for deletion (failure to meet the notability guideline), so I want to restate the problems with the article and see if we can't have a productive discussion limited solely to Wikipedia's guidelines.

• Topics that do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability don't get their own articles, but may be covered in related articles.
• There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that could be used to write a stand-alone encyclopedic article on Western whirling, meaning that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's criteria.
• Because Western whirling is both a secular derivative of Sufi whirling and a Western adaptation of tanoura, Wikipedia can still cover it in the context of those traditions.

Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting this content should disappear, but that it be presented in an appropriate context. None of this precludes recreating a dedicated article on secular whirling in the future, should the topic become more notable. I understand that some of the contributors may have a personal connection to the topic, and want it to have its own article to increase public awareness, but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

At this point, I think the following courses of action are agreeable:

1. Per Mr. Magoo and McBarker's latest suggestion, make whirling a summary article covering all three genres distinctly, and leave Sufi whirling as an in-depth article. (Tanoura either stays where it is, or gets merged to the new whirling summary, due to being a stub.)
2. Merge tanoura (dance) and whirling into Sufi whirling. The tanoura article says it's performed by Sufis, which would make it a specialized, regional form of Sufi whirling. Both tanoura and Western whirling could be covered as outgrowths of the Medieval Sufi practice.

Viapastrengo and all their friends: the point is well taken that these are three distinct traditions, so please stop repeating the argument. Please understand that we're trying to work within established community standards to save the content at whirling, which is otherwise not going to be able to stand on its own. Ibadibam (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't even noticed that Tanoura is only a regional form of Sufi. How could I have missed the mention of Sufi in such a tiny article? Nevertheless, this changes some things. I think at this point the merger of the two to Sufi whirling seems more attractive. The decreased value of Tanoura also affects whirling as a separate dance form, as I previously thought Tanoura was completely separate. Previously I established that seemingly there is only a single person practicing the whirling dance separate from sufi. At this point it's WP:TOOSOON to give the dance form its own article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and Tanoura (dance) to Sufi whirling. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Sufi whirling or Sufi spinning are not dances. It would be offensive and tantamount to apostacy in those traditions to describe those particular Sufi movement traditions as dance. And that sort of categorization is quite dangerous too for male practitioners of Sufi spinning, in light of contemporary global currents. Islam prohibits dancing. Sufism is allied or related to Islam. Therefore, no dancing allowed. Sufi spinners do so as a practice of transcendence, not as a performative dance. It is a very tightly-guarded set of practices and traditions. At the same time, their movement tradition has been appropriated and changed into a touristic entertainment form (again, without calling it a dance) -- so much so, that it's possible to see secular performances of the Whirling Dervishes in particular Turkish or other Middle Eastern settings. But even these are performed solely by male performers, and are not called 'dances' except in the most figurative / metaphorical of senses. The articles for the respective pages need to draw out these distinctions and distinguishing features, not gloss over them and collapse them into meaninglessness because it merely seems convenient and economical. One set of practices is a religious ritual (Sufi spinning and its progeny); another is a set of dance-related topics (Tanoura dance, whirling, etc.). They are worlds apart, despite some superficial cross-linkages. Let us be respectful of those particular cultural traditions.Viapastrengo (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not it is dance (which, incidentally, is how Wikipedia's sources do describe it) does not have any bearing on whether they can be covered in the same article. The entertainment forms are still derivatives of the Sufi ceremony, and can be presented as such. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the originator of the page, I'll immediately need to address the issue of suspected sock-puppetry, which I find empirically unfounded and strikingly chilling. Examining the edit history of the piece shows that the article was seeded with a fairly good sketch of a properly wikified page explaining a subtle but important set of differences in a set of dance genres, or what some would more accurately call, perhaps, "movement traditions." The notability of the dance form is beyond question, given its prominence in national and international dance festivals, geographic proliferation, and its status as a most expressive form of art. Since publication, the page has continued to generate interest and growth globally. The page was linked to a German version, and there seems to be steady growth in interlinking between this page and many others, clarifying the conceptual ripples in something so complex as dance, humanity's arguably oldest dance form. As appropriate, links to additional sources have been provided by multiple contributors, a heartening Exhibit A in the way that WP is designed to work and function. The original concerns regarding notability are completely unfounded. This either shows a disinclination to engage with the actual dance form as it is being developed within the contemporary dance scene, or it shows a strange ignorance to the very point of an article describing any given dance. Whirling is a dance, and a genre, much like polka is a genre or a dance. The page clearly establishes that through references and sufficient and authoritative secondary literature. The WP whirling page, read now, describes an existing term, and a broadly understood separate genre of contemporary dance. The critiques I'm reading suggest a distrust for the authoritativeness of the literature on dancing. That, in turn, shows a form of what I'd style 'epistolary chauvenism' -- the fetishization of a particular style of art (the verbal arts like singing, literature, poetry) at the expense of non-verbal arts. I am completely new to dance myself, and have no other motivation in learning/writing about it than intense intellectual curiosity in this historic art form. What I have found is a dance literature scene that is so hierarchical and rigid in its classicism as to defy imagination. Ballet reigns supreme. In this world, everything else outside of 'classical' dance is tantamount to 'vaudeville.' Thus, to suggest that a topic lacks notoriety merely because the literature on it is so diffused (different languages, cultures, terminology -- witness the frank admissions of Mr. Magoo in the process of educating her or himself on the subtleties between Tanoura as a dance, and tanoura as a costume, and Sufi spinning versus a term like Sufi dancing which would smack deeply of Orientalism in some people's minds. Dance is apparently a multi-layered, sometimes cabalistic or ritualistic social institution, with its own codes, laws, traditions, and jargon. Consider any other real or virtual world of which this is true. Anime, Shakespearean repertories, etc. The original critiques by Mr. Magoo are well taken, and will add additional structure and rigor to the pages in these early stages of their development (each of the whirling sub-genres -- tanoura, dervish, Egyptian, etc. will need to be further developed, and further distinguished from Sufi spinning and other traditions. That will take a little bit of time, but I see moves in that direction literally every day. On the topic of this relating to other what I've been calling 'movement traditions,' it must also be kept in mind that relating 'Sufi spinning' / 'Whirling Dervish' solely to dance is increasingly seen as incendiary in some circles. Dance and particular types of meditation rituals and worship rituals (Inaugurations, parades) have a lot in common, and the most obvious commonality is that dance may be a purely aesthetic dip, or a very particular type of political or resistance action. Recall the rise of Capoeira. Therefore, I would caution against cavalier essentializing attitudes towards particular styles of 'dance' or 'movement tradition.' Don't be ballet-snobs. Ballet is great, ... it keeps you on your toes, but dance has many mystical and dark and lovely corners that would make even the most classical of classicists within us gulp in humility from the sudden majesty of it all -- a dance that speaks powerfully and cleanly, and, finally, finds form in even textual accounts of breathtaking physical marvelousness. So, ladies and gentlemen, just relax. The page is being steadily improved and expanded. Sourcing is continuing. There are lots of different contributors working across the global, apparently. I don't know who is keeping count of votes, as I saw repeat posts, but I vote to bump this discussion anywhere we can get more accurate.Viapastrengo (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page shouldn't be slowly improved. It should be boldly done over right now by someone who knows the matter. In the past I have completely revamped certain articles up for AfD, but with the articles still ending up deleted. However most of the times the revamps have been successful. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree regarding the need for a rapid revamp and improvement, and as can be seen, that's what I and others have been trying to do within a very brief timeframe. Thank you ahead of time for everyone's patience. What I have learned about dance is that as far as non-textual artistic traditions, it is incredibly old and deep and complex, but as a non-textual art form, it necessarily gets overshadowed in textual settings. Our shared goal, I trust, is enlightenment. And so, let us have patience as the necessary sources are culled, translated, cataloged, verified, cross-linked, and so forth. This is being done as we speak, and frankly, the biggest challenge on my end (speaking solely for myself as the creator of the piece) has been the fact that I have to spend significant amount of time here defending the project. I'm not new to the game, and am very familiar with WP's notability and related guidelines. I wouldn't have created if I thought it wasn't notable. This is not being done as promotion, but is a genuine good faith attempt to carve out a small epistemic slice for a burgeoning set of dance traditions. Again, thank you for understanding. Back to editing on this end.Viapastrengo (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can address the sockpuppetry issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viapastrengo, so let's limit this discussion to the article at hand. Your discussion of arts criticism is very interesting and I actually agree with your arguments, but it doesn't address the "structural" problems of the article, which is what this AfD is about. You say that Westernized whirling is a "broadly understood separate genre of contemporary dance", but you have not given (nor have I been able to independently locate) any evidence that it is "broadly understood". You say there are "references and sufficient and authoritative secondary literature", but as Mr. Magoo has pointed out, nearly all the sources currently in the article are solely about Sufi whirling. The exceptions are the promotional web pages of a handful of non-Sufi performers, which aren't reliable sources, and the Nicole McLaren article, which explicitly states that "whirling dance has not yet become a mass phenomenon" (i.e., it is not yet notable) and actually seems to make no distinction between "whirling" and tanoura dance. Wikipedia must be representative of sources. It's not our place to ascribe significance to a topic when there are no sources to document that significance. Perhaps the lack of sources on the phenomenon is evidence of "epistolary chauvinism", as you say, but it's not our role to remedy that. But let me repeat my central assurance to you, which is that no one is arguing this topic shouldn't be covered, just that the way we have three articles covering one tradition and its outgrowths is confusing and inefficient. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lot of confusion and conflicting literature on Whirling. Clarifying this confusion was and remains one of the main purposes of this article, and the linkages between this article and its cousins (Tanoura, Sufi whirling, etc.). The best way to address Ibadibam's concerns is for anyone to re-read the Sufi whirling article, and then focus on passages like: "The Western world, having witnessed Sufi whirling through tourism, have described the various forms of dhikr as "barking, howling, dancing, etc." Barking, howling, and dancing in the minds of Western commentators, and this is sourced to a major encyclopedia. Then, glance through the Sufi whirling article to try to answer the following straightforward question: "Are women allowed to whirl in the Sufi whirling tradition?" "Are stage performances of whirling necessarily Sufi whirling?" and so on. To the former question, the answer is NOT at all clear from the Sufi whirling page. We are taught that some women have been invited, but that this is done, well, you know, how do we say this, on the down low, you know, with the, how do you say this, ah, yes, the other women, so as to not, again, what is that word, oh yes, compromise the spiritual purity of the original trance-like performance of male whirlers. Read the text of the Sufi sources in the English-language WP page -- it is rife with exclusionary commands, which make clear, Sufi whirling is a man's game. More importantly, the article accurately states that it is a religious rite of sorts, NOT A DANCE and presumably is performed to a particular musical accompaniment. The same may be true for Tanoura in the Egyptian context, though it's far more folkloric. But with Tanoura, still, the name of the game is folkloric Tanoura costumes, and folkloric (i.e., Arabic) music. Whirling, generally, by contrast, is a genre, and was explicitly described as such from the original page all the way through its various incarnations. It can be performed to different music, including contemporary pop, can be performed by male and female DANCERS, and is not limited in costume. To systematize the above, I'm even creating a contrast table to try to capture similarities and DIFFERENCES between these various recognized ritualistic movement forms. But whirling as a dance has been established. Take a look at the Dr. Oz clip that was put up, and then try to refer a viewer to the existing Sufi whirling or tanoura page to get an explanation of what's happening on screen, or in their local dance festivals. Chances are, even with significantly reworked Sufi whirling and tanoura pages, the viewer would still be left scratching their head -- (1) is this religious? (2) I thought women weren't allowed to perform; (3) will I be targeted by Islamists for 'encroaching' upon this UNESCO-recognized ritual? Whirling as written does a really nice job of already explaining the contrasts and providing meaningful encyclopedic information to the reader. Thank you for your patience with this. Viapastrengo (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Viapastrengo: We're not here to debate the topic itself, but whether the cited sources in whirling are sufficient to support a standalone Wikipedia article. The proposal is not to remove the content of whirling, but to move it to make a single, more complete article. Ibadibam (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ibadibam: and Do Not MergeI'm discussing precisely this, the suggestion to merge into a single article. This would be disastrous for a number of reasons, many of which have been articulated above: (1) lack of neutral POV; (2) Orientalism; (3) essentializing; (4) gender-based differences in various styles; (5) contested nature of the term dance to refer to some sort of sacred ritual v. sacred dance, which is acknowledged; (6) single article would be far more confusing than multiple ones that describe different phenomena or practices; (7) political stakes at issue (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/are_muslims_allowed_to_sing_and_dance_.html); (8) etc.; (9) etc. If someone is seriously suggesting merger, take a moment to read through some Islamic doctrine on dancing and then some popular press accounts and then imagine what a single, comprehensive WP article on Sufi whirling would look like, and what sort of misunderstandings it could inspire. Whirling, tanoura dance, and Sufi whirling are kind of like Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump -- they're all related insofar as they're all movement traditions (i.e., politicians), but any of the three entail radically different sets of ontological, epistemological and political commitments. That's why WP encourages standalone projects to develop these topics, while simultaneously encouraging umbrella and category pages, like "folks who want to be president in 2016" and so on. This seems very obvious to me, and so much ink has already been spilled on explaining this. Don't merge please, and allow this to develop while encouraging other neutrals to start mediating this discussion. I don't understand the need to be so entrenched in one's position. We all seem to be seeing eye to eye, and instead of working together to improve the page, we're slipping into suspicion over one another's motives, and so forth. Enough is enough. Let's get to work.Viapastrengo (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making Waves (Hay and Stone album)[edit]

Making Waves (Hay and Stone album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an album for a band that does not have its own article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay and Stone. The album lacks significant coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, as already determined by the previous AfD. ~ Rob^Talk 01:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica[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)).

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In brief, the article is a list of figures deemed the saints of the religious denomination. However, the article relies largely on two sources: 1) Wasserman, B. J. (2007) Current List of Saints, and 2) Wasserman, J., Wasserman, N. & Crowley, A. (2013) To Perfect This Feast: A Performance Commentary on the Gnostic Mass. The first one is a .pdf file / a list published by GnosticMass.org, a site run by two "clergymen" of the denomination. The second source, is no different; it has the same authors as the website, and it's a WP:PRIMARY source describing their own belief system. I hate to say this, because it appears so highly bureaucratic, but we'd need WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and at the moment the article has none. Therefore, I've been thinking about a couple of solutions:

1. To merge the article with Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. But do we really need to mention all the 75 "saints"? We would need sources that qualify for the merger as well.
2. To nominate the article for AfD. Do we really need an article to enlist 75 "saints" of a religious denomination, especially if there isn't any independent secondary sources to discuss the subject? Is the topic area WP:NOTABLE enough to merit its own article in that case? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the saints of this tiny religious group. I have previously discussed this matter with the nominator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Shisha-guru is right. The history of Western Occultism has been written. It can't be too hard to find some form of commentary in the literature on Crowley's selection and today's reception. (Swinburne? Why Swinburne? Who would read Swinburne these days? And why is Mohammed's name invoked everytime Gnostic Mass is performed but Orpheus' only on special occasions!) Until secondary literature is found and put in the article putting the contents into Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is the appropiate solution. 94.133.216.126 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete -- This is about an occult denomination, invented by Crowley. I am not clear how many adherents it has, but I suspect that there is an element of POV in the question of who is in the list, possibly Crowley's. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'd like to offer a counter toward the removal of this article. I feel that how little of an official sect might be, that it should have no bearing on the removal of an article accurately representing information about such sect. In reading the history of the discussion regarding the deletion of this article I see many factors being brought up that seem to have no grounds regarding the subject of removing it such as questioning why certain people are on the list. I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant in making such a decision. After going through the actual article I have found no unreliable sources on this page. When we consider the Wikipedia standard of Identifying Reliable Sources, I find no contradiction or unsuitable source at all. To comment only on some (as to not fill this page with repetitive information, Source 1 is Tau Apiryon, a Bishop of the Church itself and fully qualified to comment upon the central rite, The Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. Source 2 is Hymenaeus Beta, the actual International head of the Ordo Templi Orientis of which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 3 is Aleister Crowley, the person who actually wrote the Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. He also was the International Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis in which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 4 is Agape, which is the official and sanctioned news letter of the USA Grand Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis. Source 5 is James Wasserman, also a Bishop of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica sited from his published work commenting on the Gnostic Mass. This particular citation is considered to be one of the most insightful and qualified commentaries ever made on the Gnostic Mass. I'm afraid if I list further that I may be simply beating a dead horse... The sources in this article are absolutely qualified, they meet the criteria of Wikipedia's reliable source as it is 1. properly cited to the piece of work itself 2. properly cites the creator of the content and 3. properly cites the publisher of the work. It goes even further as to assure the sources are qualified and even comprise a list of some of the most authoritative experts on the matter. I have supplied enough information above to allow you all to verify the sources are legit. D1s0b3y (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— D1s0b3y (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not only does the article rely on primary sources, those sources are all partisan in nature. Without independent, reliable sources we cannot write articles. This has to go and I urge the authors behind this article to start editing Wikipedia completely outside their areas of expertise or interest to actually learn what we're doing here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman. If the only grounds for removing the article are independent sources then I must say the article either needs them added or needs to be rewritten with a more rounded approach. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, independent sources don't appear to be a make it or break it qualification for articles. D1s0b3y (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Most of the arguments for deletion are fairly specious. There are plenty of secondary sources given, the primary sources being Crowley, any commentary by subsequent members of the churches ecclesiastical hierarchy are necessarily secondary. Bias is allowed in the very Wikipedia standards which the person nominating this article for deletion cites, so I'm not sure what their criterion is. This is not an argument about beliefs per se, in any case, merely who the church itself holds to be its saints. And that has been fully clarified by the sources given, most of which are secondary and some of which have no bias. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on minor sects and their beliefs, this article is no different. Linking to who those Saints are has been the major problem here for some time, but I don't believe any of the personages linked are any longer in question. As a religious studies scholar myself I frequently come to Wikipedia as a first look at minor religions and their beliefs. There is no reason not to have more rather than less in these situations. Stealthepiscopalian (talk Stealthepiscopalian 19:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian[reply]

• Comment In response to the "keep" recommendations by D1s0b3yIf and Stealthepiscopalian, neither of you seems to understand an essential part of the General notability guideline, which says that when "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." None of the sources now in the article are independent. Nothing written by anyone affiliated with the denomination is independent. All sources are written by people affiliated with this tiny occult denomination. If either of you, or anyone else can furnish evidence of coverage in truly independent reliable sources, then I will be happy to change my recommendation to delete. The onus is on those who advocate for keeping the article to produce the independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this list of "saints". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice User Sthealthepiscopalian was confirmed as a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely.[13] I hope there isn't WP:CANVASSing going on outside Wikipedia[14]. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, After seeing your link I'm willing to change my stance that the page should be deleted. If independent sources is truly a requirement for articles to be on Wikipedia than clearly this article does not fit the bill. I certainly hope that other articles are held to the same standards such as the List_of_Catholic_saints as it has minimal sources and all appear to be primary sources and no independent secondary sources. If that is the standard than the "saints of the EGC" article needs to be deleted or resurrected with a higher standard. I'm in agreement. D1s0b3y (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As single (primary) source, POV, not notable, [take your pick] PlainJain (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep Notable, the sources are fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.146.128 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Jono Bacon, and protect the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Severed Fifth[edit]

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

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

Redirect to main person behind this band was undone, a second time, by Ahunt, who claims that "one very extensive third party ref" established that this should pass notability standards. Well, the band doesn't pass WP:NBAND, since they didn't have a deal with a major record label (they didn't have any deal at all), didn't have any hits, didn't put out any albums that received significant reviews, et cetera. The supposedly "extensive" reference is an article in Ars Technica, which briefly discusses the fact that the band released its album with a CC license. That information is already in the main article for the person (Jono Bacon), and I think it would be the first time that a band gets to be notable based on one single article which isn't even about the music.

Note that the article has been nominated and deleted before; at the time the Ars Technica article was already in there, and nothing has changed: there are still no reliable sources. Note that the version restored by Ahunt has six references--all but one of them to the band's own website or to the founder's website. In other words, the subject fails NBAND and GNG spectacularly, but I will settle for a merge--as was already advocated at the first AfD. Also pinging Ravenswing, who nominated the article the first time around. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While it is true that this article does not meet the stringent standards set by WP:NBAND, in that it only has one independent, third party source and not multiple ones, I believe it should be kept, regardless. This article describes what was predominantly an economic experiment, more than a musical one, about an attempt to create a band that would distribute free music and rely on concert admission tickets sales, T-shirt sales and donations for economic survival, instead of trying to sell music, an attempt to make a new model work. The fact that the band failed and no longer seems to exist, is a key part of the significance of the article, that, at least in this case, the model didn't work. Because of this encyclopedically significant music industry economic story I believe that the article should be retained, as WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping this article is not an improvement--I don't see why it would be. The content you are talking about is possibly relevant in Bacon's article, where it already is, or in some article about free music--but seriously, we're talking about one non-notable band that appeared to have been a hobby of someone whose main job was something else entirely, a band whose music may have been free but was clearly not considered important by anyone else, really.

    Jax 0677, this sort of applies to your statement as well: Nothing in Jim Adams's article suggests he's actually notable outside of Defiance (the article on Adams is horrible), and there is nothing in any reliable source that says something significant about Adams in that band (obviously I'm not counting this, haha!). So I maintain that a redirect is the right thing. Next thing you know we have two notable musicians and the band is a supergroup... Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had a second look at Jim Adams (musician) and redirected it to Defiance (band); it's really that minimal. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - The article should be either kept due to two notable musicians, or redirected to Jono Bacon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Which notable musicians would those be? Adams has none, and Bacon's (very shaky) notability comes solely from his computing experience; he would certainly fail NMUSIC himself by a country mile. Ravenswing 11:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @Ravenswing:, then we redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: ... which everyone but Ahunt advocates, so I'm not understanding why this was relisted. Ravenswing 17:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: to the Bacon article. This one neither meets NBAND or the GNG, and that makes this a slam dunk. I'm unmoved by Ahunt's WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument, because if this was a significant industry economic story, multiple reliable sources would say so, in detail sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material ... If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." These are core content policies of Wikipedia, and establishes a basic principle: it's not whether we think something is important that matters, but whether the world has taken notice. It hasn't, and per WP:V, that means an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 18:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jono Bacon per previous AfD (which closed as delete) and above; this fails all relevant notability guidelines (and all irrelevant ones too, not that that matters). ansh666 00:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Since every editor aside from Ahunt is advocating redirecting, why is this still being relisted? Ravenswing 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mosiviyat Enclave[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability: dePRODded by original editor without comment. PamD 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find this place on Google Maps and there are no references available. Neither notable nor possible to verify the information. Also, check the article content "official residence of director of Raheislam Organisation, founder of Almehdi Islamic Library and ex-member of Indian judiciary." Seems to me the author is trying to use the article for promotional purposes. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf hassan[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Current sources confirm that he held the position of team doctor for a rugby union team at provincial and national level. He was therefore reported as announcing details of injuries to players, but I can't see any sources providing any in-depth coverage. Notability has not been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Drchriswilliams; national level insufficient. Fails WP:NSPORTS clearly. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Already speedy deleted on 11 March 2016 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs): (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrianov Herman[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ENT. Similar content previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrianov Herman. Can find no independent confirmation that individual won (or was nominated) at Odessa Festival (plus Ref #2 link doesn't work). Can find no mention of individual on Vedogon Theater website (http://www.vedogon.ru/eng/). WP:BLP concerns as individual is underage. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jator (swati pashtun tribe)[edit]

Jator (swati pashtun tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are a few historical sources that suggest that this tribe exists, but not enough to base an article on. Unless non-English sources can be found, I don't think this article is viable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as unsourced, largely OR-driven pseudo-anthropology. Quis separabit? 17:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as above WikiHannibal (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We all know GNG is hard. czar 01:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Recluse/Art Is Hard[edit]

The Recluse/Art Is Hard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While I love cursive, this non-charting single fails NALBUMS and the GNG In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not every release by a notable musical act is inheritably notable. This would appear to be the case with this single release. The tracks did not chart, and as the nom stated this appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Load Impact[edit]

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

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

Still no more notable than the last time it was deleted. WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I have declined a speedy delete, as it is not the same as the previously deleted version. The two new references now here should be considered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Still doesn't seem notable, even with the new refs.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sole person arguing to keep is invoking WP:Other stuff exists, which isn't a valid argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeerJ Computer Science[edit]

PeerJ Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article dePRODded by creator with reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PROD reason still stands: Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources (only sources are a press release and the journal's website). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per nom, It is cited a few times, but probably not enough to meet WP:NJournals (examples: 1 and 2) and there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines as I could only find this article with an interview that contributes towards establishing notability even if it is not entirelly indepentdent and it is not enough to fulfill the requirement of having multiple sources PeerJ Launches PeerJ Computer Science If additional RS that meet the requirements were found I would lean towards inclusion.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The journal is in the selective indexing service for major CS journals at DBLP (DBLP Bibliography Server). Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pennsylvania libraries have both announced support for researchers publishing in PeerJ Computer Science.^[1][2]. he computing association USENIX has stated that rejected papers from its conferences would be offered for formal peer-review and publication in the journal, giving the reason that many significant contributions to science often go unpublished due to space constraints.^[3] Woodleymode (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment None of those databases/lists are particularly selective and the coverage is not really in-depth either. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete mostly a case of WP:TOOSOON I think. A merge might be more appropriate though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Brand-new journals that make a sufficient splash can be notable (I think Discrete Analysis is, for instance) but I don't see it in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No offense to Discrete Analysis, which is a great idea, but it can hardly be called a "splash" with just seven articles. If that's the definition of notable, then PeerJ CS certainly qualifies. I'm not sure RandyKitty's opinion on whether DBLP etc are notable is the consensus either, the community seems to think it is significant. Woodleymode (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think your logic is incorrect for the following reasons: Discrete Analysis is absolutely not notable under Wp:NJournals. However, it has generated significant coverage in good independent sources, meaning that it meets WP:GNG (a rare feat indeed for a new academic journal). PeerJ itself has generated such coverage, too, but PeerJ Computer Science has not, so it doesn't meet GNG. The only other way then for it to meet our inclusion criteria is to meet NJournals and I argue that it doesn't. DBLP does not contribute to notability, because it strives to be all inclusive and therefore is not a selective database in the sense of NJournals (even though it is a significant resource in its own right and considered valuable by the community it serves). Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, by "splash" I meant the independent coverage of the journal, not the papers it has published (top quality as they might be). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is textbook WP:OCE. Tigraan (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. This close is without prejudice against the article's content being merged if found necessary at a later point in time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott Richardson[edit]

James Scott Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All refs are dead. Can't find any live ones and in any event he doesn't seem to have done anything notable beyond operating a website that was fined, which comes under WP:1E. We either need to find sources that demonstrate notability or delete this unsourced article per WP:BLP Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge salvageable content to Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team (or perhaps Tri-City Skins). Mindmatrix 16:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I updated the CBC ref with a working archive link. Mindmatrix 16:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (or possibly delete) - no evidence of sustained notability for political activities. Blythwood (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. No coverage except for one incident where he and another person were fined by a court for "spreading hate". Google search finds only social media; Google News finds only other people with the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches didn't turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team or Tri-City Skins. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per MelanieN, whose search results I duplicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AKA George[edit]

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

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for music artists. Cannot prove national radio play (reference for regional BBC play only). Does not have coverage in press beyond minor blogs. Many references are dead and information is sparse. Has not been signed to a label or had a charting single. Mountain^cirque 15:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would like to raise an eyebrow to the main editor of this article (and certain IPs) which may be very closely associated to the subject. Mountain^cirque 15:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as searches found nothing better and none of this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Territory. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Territory (country subdivision)[edit]

Territory (country subdivision) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same meaning as Territory no point to disambiguate Quest for Truth (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Territory. If there is nothing to merge, just redirect. bd2412 T 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is indeed nothing to merge. The introduction of Territory (country subdivision), which is the main content:

“	Territory is a type of political administrative division, usually to areas that is under the jurisdiction of a state. In U.S. terminology, it refers to an organized division of an area that is under control of a country but not formally developed into, or incorporated into, a political unit of that country of equal status to other political units such as states or provinces.	”
— Territory (country subdivision)

The above is very likely extracted from Territory:

“	A territory is a term for types of administrative division, usually an area that is under the jurisdiction of a state. In most countries' terminology, such as the United States and Nigeria, it refers to an organized division of an area that is under control of a country but not formally developed into, or incorporated into, a political unit of that country of equal status to other political units such as states or provinces. In international politics, the term is used particularly in reference to a non-sovereign geographic area which has come under the authority of another government; which has not been granted the powers of self-government normally devolved to secondary territorial divisions; or both.	”
— Territory

--Quest for Truth (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. This is entirely duplicative of the material at territory. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Forman[edit]

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

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

This fictional character fails to meet WP:GNG and I don't see an applicable SNG where this character would qualify. A cursory search for sources found only two reliable sources, neither of which was in-depth. The article appears to be a lot of fancruft original research. This has been nominated for deletion before. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Arguably a notable character, but this article currently has no sources other than a dead link. Perhaps secondary sources discussing the character can be found, but if not, redirect to List of That '70s Show characters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, there's [15] from The A.V. Club and [16] from Time. It's not much, but these articles have some info that could be added to the article. This is absolutely full of original research and definitely needs to be cleaned up if it's kept. I guess I'd be wiling to vote to keep it if someone could locate more sources. I've spent a bit of time searching, and I've found little that goes beyond trivial mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Coetzee[edit]

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

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

Article's subject fails WP:NCRIC and therefore the WP:GNG. Longstanding consensus at WP:CRIC that under-19 international cricketers are not inherently notable. GreenCricket^TALK 10:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  12:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May be re-created if/when he progresses to the senior national team. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Mohsin[edit]

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

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

not played single First class game GreenCricket^TALK 10:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High level of performances at the under 19 world cup lead to him passing the GNG. The-Pope (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Some coverage, but I believe not enough to pass WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not an expert at Cricket-related issues, but as I read WP:NCRICKET, he falls short.
• Delete He does not appear to meet NCRICKET. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep consists of, "It's hard to find sources, but they must exist", and "she exists in databases, but I can't provide specific links to where". Those aren't enough. Should better sources come to light in the future, this can always be reconsidered. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maimoona Murtaza Malik[edit]

Maimoona Murtaza Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable enough GreenCricket^TALK 10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Comment -- pinging @GreenCricket: -- an AfD w/o a rationale can be speedy closed. Assuming a mistake and giving an hour or so to correct until closing. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC) some rationale has been added. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- mentioned in "The Nation" (2013) and the coverage in Arab News suggests an important public intellectual and raising political figure; head of an international school is not enough for PROF#C6, but it adds something. These would not be enough sources for a keep for a western researcher, but given the difficulty of finding sources and WP:BIAS I think that the likelihood is that we are missing much more in the Arab and Urdu speaking press. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has there been a Wikipedia policy that says that if sources can't be found it can be assumed that they exist? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Not enough evidence of any sort of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Mscuthbert. She pops up in databases, too, but I'm only seeing mentions in English language databases. She's obviously a pretty important TV personality and for a Pakistani woman to support women's rights on TV, that's pretty significant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which databases? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Gale and EBSCO. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links please. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No links provided indicate lack of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. In the end, it comes down to sources. This AfD has gone on for several weeks, suggesting there's not much more to be found...and what's there at present is certainly inadequate. Glad to change positions if some additional WP:RS can be found. Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete a paltry 2 hits [17] a google news search. No hits at all in a google books search. Ergo, she is not notable. (Note: I am aware that such searches do not turn up everything that's out there, but when people are notable, they reliably turn up at least some sources).E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wishful thinking not withstanding, not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roshaneh Zafar[edit]

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

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

not notable GreenCricket^TALK 10:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- I found at least some coverage, such as these: [18][19][20]. Evidently has done some writing: [21]. GAB^Hello! 00:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above, plus Obama paid tribute to Zafar, plus a mention here, plus in-depth coverage here. Meets the WP:GNG--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Headache (journal). --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Headache Society[edit]

American Headache Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advert for obscure medical organization, particularly its CME program; and a roster of non-notable past presidents. Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Nothing obscure about this group. Numerous independant sources exist about the AHS within the medical community. I don't care enough about it to makes edits myself, but this would be a ridicuous delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.113.20.135 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, they have prominence through Headache (journal), a peer-reviewed journal. Heartwarming (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Headache (journal) perhaps for now as this is still questionable and would need improvements to accepted, likely best restarted a better article altogether. Notifying DGG for education analysis. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rediret a s suggested; that should ttake care of it. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Articulate Ink. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Dalton[edit]

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

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

Insufficient evidence of notability -- fails WP:ARTIST (side note: This article was created as a part of this meetup: Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina. The meetup seems to have produced a lot of articles of questionable quality/notability -- nearly all of them either have been deleted or have ongoing AfDs.) IagoQnsi (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and redirect to Articulate Ink. Three of the sources in the article are solid articles about the printmaking collective (of which two are from different years and the third is undated). All say a little about Dalton as one of the four founders, but the only source with any biographical detail is the Saskatchewan NAC bio, which is an appendage to the undated source: they featured the collective as "Artist of the month" and linked to bios of the four people. I was unable to find sufficient evidence that Dalton is independently notable, but I do believe the collective has just enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Dalton - or one of the others - may go on to a notable career, so I see no point in deletion: I advocate moving the article and rewriting it to be about the collective while keeping the redirect and history, and adding redirects for the other three. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Yngvadottir. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Drmies. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Xanthomelanoussprog. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect per Xanthomelanoussprog. There are not enough sources to demonstrate notability. I started Articulate Ink, which is marginally notable, with very short thumbnails of the artists. If any of them get independently notable they will merit stand-alone articles. Is anyone interested in de-orphaning Articulate Ink? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the sources appears to be a well-established artist, with sufficient independent newspaper coverage to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all content and Merge per recommendation of YngvadottirSadads (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Six of the ongoing AfDs referred to in the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsha Kennedy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Hauser have been initiated by IagoQnsi. The event where an article was created is not in itself a valid criterion for deletion. That articles should be deleted because related articles have been also been nominated for deletion is also not a valid criterion; The AfD procedure for deleting multiple pages does not apply here, and should not be used as an argument. Mduvekot (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge per recommendation of Yngvadottir. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as separate article as the RS seems adequate, or as second best keep all content and merge to article on the collectiveAtlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Articulate Ink per Yngvadottir. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Articulate Ink, per above. Individual notable as part of that organization. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I am not totally satisfied with the notability of Articulate Ink, but she is in any case already covered there and there's nothing that needs merging. It was not a wise decision to make this article. Leaders of editathons are in my opinion expected to do screening, to guide the participants from making articles that will not be accepted--which is never a good introduction to WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Articulate Ink collective is notable enough.There are several newspaper stories devoted to the collective, enough to satisfy WP:GNG criteria, which is not hard. The problem with this individual artist is that only one independent source, Saskatchewan Network for Art Collecting, gives any significant coverage, a sort of CV. The other sources just mention her as a member of the collective. Yes, the editathon leader should have given better guidance. The deletions at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina#List of articles give a negative message to editors who want to counter systemic bias. But creating articles on subjects that are not [yet] technically notable is not the solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as separate article, per Mduvekot and Gamaliel — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Articulate Ink. Every reference used (as of now) connects her impact with her role in that collective. I can't see how the reader is better served by having two separate articles about entirely overlapping topics. If Ms. Dalton played a central role in establishing AI, perhaps that article should have a section about her role; I don't know the topic well enough to have an opinion on that. But I can't see what purpose is served by having two separate articles. -Pete (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Articulate Ink ("keep and redirect" is somewhat confusing): The subject seems to only be known as the creator of Articulate Ink. Redirection gives the reader more context about the actual company itself as well as the subject's role in its creation. The subject is not retired yet, so I have no prejudice to a future standalone article, but for now redirection is a sound step. Esquivalience ^t 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify, I was arguing for the article to be moved and Amber Dalton to remain as a redirect. I'm unsure why a new article on Articulate Ink was created in the meantime - that was a red link when I posted here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yngvadottir: That was me. I wanted to see if an Articulate Ink article would look notable, and the easiest way was to start it. I agree with changing this article to a redirect, keeping its history. I saw that articles on two other collective members, Michelle Brownridge and Karli Jessup, were speedy deleted A7 (No credible indication of importance) and G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement) on 9 March, presumably more fall-out from the editathon. I wonder if they should be made redirects too? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge Dalton in her own right is borderline but AI certainly notable. I'm happy to see both articles exist.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ocean Beach Antique District. Thanks to all for an unusually collegial and productive discussion.  Sandstein  19:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Mendoza[edit]

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

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

No substantially different from original article. This person may be notable within the antique scene of one city, but there's no evidence of broader WP:BIO notability criteria, particularly in-depth coverage from third party reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - After much discussion during the 1st AFD and after this article was reworked considerably, veteran editor User:MelanieN, who nominated the 1st AFD citing lack of notability, MelanieN noted, "Congratulations on your new article on Cordelia Mendoza. I think you have established her as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC). -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (reevaluate,see comment below) Notability in this reworked article, as I see it, resides news coverage of her childhood role as a poster child (literally as a poster child) for the Heart Association; in her career as a locally notable antiques and collectibles dealer (a subject on which she is often quoted in the press); and in the considerable attention paid by the regional and local press to her civic participation. The fact that people will want to know who she is because of her many notable relatives does not count towards notability, but it should be an incentive to make this a better article. I believe that it would improved by tightening (shortening) to remove a great deal of un-encyclopedic detail (at present, it's hard to spot the notability hiding behind the trivial detail.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have begun reworking the article by tightening the writing and deleting unnecessary detail. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am quoted above, as having found the article acceptable and the person notable in 2010. I am currently evaluating the article again, from the perspective of six years' additional experience here. I am discussing improvements to the article with the author (no pun intended), and I will comment later at this AfD.--MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is all local at best and my searches found only expected links, nothing else seemingly better. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean, SwisterTwister. What does "expected links" mean? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning all I found were a few trivial mentions from a few local news articles, nothing solid enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been pared down and reorganized to be more concise. Equally important, extraneous info and ext links have been removed, and dead citations have been replaced with reliable sources. The subject has a lengthy history of volunteer work, sourced by numerous newspaper articles about her, starting as a child as a representative for a year of the San Diego Heart Association, with national, regional and local nonprofits in her adult life (Rady Children's Hospital and Best Friends Animal Society are national organizations, and the Heart Association is a regional org). She was noted by a daily newspaper as "a pioneer in establishing the antiques district" in Ocean Beach, San Diego. Add in multiple awards for volunteer and business contributions in her fields of expertise and notability is well established. Meets WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AuthorAuthor, you only get one !vote; I changed your duplicate !vote to a comment. After your paring and reorganization of the article, the same issues remain. The awards are all commonplace local community awards; none of them are notable

As far as sources go, this article is still heavily padded with refs that are tangential at best. Most of them are broken links or either don't mention Mendoza or quote her. The exceptions are:::(1) A short article in The OB Rag, a neighborhood-based (not city) paper,

(2) a short Q&A in the San Diego Union Tribune about local antiquing;

(3) a few short articles about neighborhood home tours in SDNews.com, an obscure community paper.

(4) the only article that meets meets the "depth of coverage" part of WP:BIO would be maybe a 1989 article from "San Diego Woman" [22]. I'm not sure if the publication itself would meet WP:RS guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that an article about the Mendoza's dog getting attacked by a coyote doesn't count. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OhNoitsJamie, the coyote story ref was used as a source for the city she resides in, thus the placement of the ref in the article. Per your comment about SDNews.com being "an obscure community newspaper," according to its website, the newspaper group was established in 1988 and prints and publishes five community newspapers. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they publish several free papers that people might pick up from a rack in the deli and glance through while they wait for their sandwich to be prepared. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The Beacon and the Beach and Bay Press and the others are more than that. They have editorial standards, and are delivered to homes and businesses, and people read them eagerly for the local news. But they are still a very minor and hyper-local journalistic endeavor. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly. (changing to Redirect, see below) I have been working with AuthorAuthor for several days, hoping to get the references improved and the notability made more clear. AuthorAuthor has tried mightily. But at the end of the day this just doesn't make it as a Wikipedia article. The subject's references are minor and local, confirming that this woman is notable only in her own neighborhood. Not enough for an international encyclopedia. Sorry, AuthorAuthor, and thanks for trying. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The refs cited are not only from SDNews.com. The San Diego Union-Tribune is a regional paper, and the San Diego Daily Transcript is the legal paper of record for the region. Also, a California state award is not minor; neither is a key to a city from a city the size of San Diego. The accumulation of those awards and the others the subject has received, along with recognition as a volunteer leader starting as a child for nonprofits - including two nonprofits that are national organizations -- plus a career in which she is regularly called upon by the news media to comment as an expert, not to mention writing contributions, I believe clearly demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you believe this. I did my best to believe it too, but the sources just aren't there and the importance just isn't there. Her strongest claim to notability IMO is opening the first antique store in what became Ocean Beach Antique Row, but that just doesn't rise to the level of significance for this encyclopedia. Her voluntarism as an adult is routine and local; her voluntarism and recognition as a child got some coverage but not enough for an article. You were not able to find a source to explain about the state award (which may have been something special, or may have been a routine favor to a constituent). The only source for the key to the city is an op-ed by the subject's sister. And so on. It's true that I proclaimed her notable six years ago, when I had been editing for about a year. I have since learned more - a lot more - about Wikipedia's criteria for articles. --MelanieN (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of "believing" the subject is notable; it is a matter of the subject, backed up by multiple third-party sources, passing WP:GNG. Notable was not San Diego Daily Transcript's statement that the subject had the first store in what became the antique district; it was reporting in the newspaper that she was "a pioneer in establishing the antiques district." That is quite a step beyond simply having one of the first stores. Discounting a state award by saying it "may have been a routine favor to a constituent" is jumping to a conclusion. For the key to the city award, I will try and find, through archives, another newspaper source, even though the San Diego Union-Tribune published an opinion piece that included it. I would think the paper fact checks. As for OhNoitsJamie claiming that "most of" the links in the article "are broken links or either don't mention Mendoza or quote her" is false. She is heavily quoted in the sources. Added up, multiple sources pass WP:GNG. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bob Mendoza (spouse). As User:MelanieN writes above, coverage is too local and an in too little depth to pass the the bar, although it comes close. With regret generated by the fact that this article was created by an editor who is an important asset to Wikipedia, I recommend asking User:AuthorAuthor to move the material she judges appropriate to Bob Mendoza, and redirecting Cordelian Mendoza to that page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bob Mendoza per E.M.Gregory's suggestion. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually if we are going to redirect, I would suggest a redirect/merge to Ocean Beach Antique District. That is where she derives any notability she has - not from being Bob Mendoza's wife. However, I will defer to AuthorAuthor's choice of a redirect target in the matter. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I concur with MelanieN. Redirecting to Ocean Beach Antique District makes sense as the redirect target. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with redirect/merge to Ocean Beach Antique District.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article needs serious work - as well as merging of some of the Mendoza information. I will do that a little later, no time right now. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took a while! The Antique District article was in terrible shape, and virtually all its links were dead. But it is now Wiki-shape and includes information about Cordelia Mendoza. I now support a Redirect to Ocean Beach Antique District. Thanks to E.M.Gregory for coming up with an alternative to deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, E.M.Gregory, for the alternative suggestion. And thank you, MelanieN, for your stellar advice and hard work on both articles. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Consensus, Kudos to User:AuthorAuthor and User:MelanieN for making AFD work the way it should. User:Ohnoitsjamie - are you on board?E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Yes, that seems like a reasonable redirect given the subject's close association with that target. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Puzzles[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been edited to fix previously unpublished synthesis. The close connection notice is relevant as I am the author of the papers at Cornell University's arXiv mentioned in the article. Didoku (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article essentially introduces Didoku puzzles, later renamed to Latin Puzzles, based on a single source http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.06946v1.pdf, by a single author, possibly related to the author of the Wikipedia article in question. The article promotes several related web sites. The rest of the article references stuff related to Latin square and Sudoku. Merging with Latin square or Sudoku articles isn't an option - the discussed puzzle variants don't pass the notability criteria IMO. Particularly, Sudoku article is constantly expanded with non-popular variants that eventually are removed by the editors. --Dobrichev (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep. IMO, the name of the puzzles shouldn't be an issue provided that it does not clash with existing ones. The article is actually based on three sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.06946v1.pdf, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0772.pdf and http://www.definition.latinpuzzles.com. Most of the web sites have already been removed following the previous comment from Dobrichev. I agree with you that merging with articles for Sudoku or Latin squares is not appropriate, but for a different reason: Latin Puzzles are not variants of Sudoku, it is the other way around: Sudoku is a type of Latin Puzzle. In order to discuss notability please make explicit your notability criteria. Thanks. Didoku (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is ironical that the article is tagged as "orphan" and a link from Sudoku has been deleted on the basis that Latin Puzzles 'has issues'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.71.209 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Two additional sources for the article are the Spanish newspaper La Opinión de Tenerife and the Bulletin of the Spanish College of Telecommunication Engineers Didoku (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • IMO, the 'previously unpublished synthesis' is no longer applicable. A reference has been included that already makes a slightly broader synthesis of the subject: http://www.definition.latinpuzzles.com/ (Ref. 6 when this comment is written). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.71.209 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self-publshed neologism. ArXiv doesn't count as a reliable source because they have too little editorial control over content, and the math.HO category of the main source here is where they send all the math preprints that would be considered uninteresting to serious mathematicians. And latinpuzzles.org also obviously fails WP:RS. The rest of the so-called "sources" are not actually sources for the subject of the article, but inappropriately brought in as original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep. Hello David, what a surprise to see you around, welcome to the discussion. I admire your work and enjoy the “Did you know?” tidbits in your page. I share your interest in recreational mathematics too, but not your opinion advising the deletion of “Latin Puzzles”. I will expose my reasons next, but let me share first the feeling that you are coming down too hard on this matter. Your comments are terse and without nuances; my view is that there are shades in the topic that deserve more time and attention.

• • NEOLOGISMS. The fact that the title for a Wikipedia article is a neologism should have no bearing IMO on whether or not the article should be deleted. Neologisms are needed in Mathematics and Science to name new objects.

• • CLASSIFICATION. With respect to the classification in ArXiv, you fail to mention that authors also get to decide the category for their articles. You fail to mention too that http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0772.pdf, another source for “Latin Puzzles”, is in math.CO, the ArXiv’s Combinatorics category.

• • SERIOUS MATHEMATICIANS. Your claim that “math.HO is uninteresting to serious mathematicians” deserves clarification. Please provide a definition of “serious mathematicians” before we can resume the discussion on this point.

• • LATINPUZZLES.ORG. You say that latinpuzzles.org –you made a mistake here, it is latinpuzzles.com– “obviously fails WP:RS”. This claim looks ungrounded as per section “Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves” on WP:RS: latinpuzzles.com seems to be a valid source because it complies with the requirements stated there.

• • ORIGINAL RESEARCH. A puzzle called “Canario” is mentioned in “Latin Puzzles”, and a newspaper is cited as a source for it. Please explain how this is a case of “original research by synthesis”.

• • RELIABILITY OF ARXIV. I think ArXiv has a certain reliability as a source, given the existence of moderators for each area and the need for endorsement. Quantifying this reliability needs a criterion, but some common sense ones give it a value above zero. To mention just a few:

• • – Many scientists publish in ArXiv regularly and cite ArXiv articles in their papers. You for example are author or co-author yourself of more than 160 articles in ArXiv. These scientists must be giving a reliability value above zero to the repository to do that.

• • – Define the reliability of ArXiv as the probability of an article taken at random be also published in an indexed journal. The reliability of ArXix by this criterion is not zero either.

• • – Another measure for reliability could be the ratio (number of ArXiv articles cited as a sources in Wikipedia scientific articles) / (number of scientific articles in Wikipedia). This criterion gives again a value above zero for the reliability of ArXiv, as there are articles in Wikipedia other than "Latin Puzzles" that have ArXiv articles as sources.

• • – Some important results in Science were first published in ArXiv. Grigoriy Perelman for example, a Fields Medal holder, chose ArXiv to publish his solution to the Poincaré Conjecture, one of the Millennium Problems. This adds reliability to ArXiv IMO.
  • Didoku (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Didoku, I'm striking out the word "keep" at the beginning of this comment. You only get to say "keep" once. Subsequent comments could be titled "comment" or "reply" or the like. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elohor Godswill[edit]

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

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

Player did not appear in any professional leagues, and is not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. MYS77 ^✉ 01:51, 4 March 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 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a player that has not played in any WP:FPL and not enough to pass WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY and GNG. Given his youth, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - nominator withdrew. NAC Ajraddatz (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Kennedy[edit]

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

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

Insufficient indication of notability -- fails WP:ARTIST (Side note: This article was created as a part of this meetup: Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina. The meetup seems to have produced a lot of articles of questionable quality/notability -- most of them have been deleted or have ongoing AfDs.) IagoQnsi (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on the sources appears to be a well-established artist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Six of the ongoing AfDs referred to in the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsha Kennedy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Hauser have been initiated by IagoQnsi. The event where an article was created is not in itself a valid criterion for deletion. That articles should be deleted because related articles have been also been nominated for deletion is also not a valid criterion; The AfD procedure for deleting multiple pages does not apply here, and should not be used as an argument. Mduvekot (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I apologize, this AfD was a mistake -- I clearly misunderstood the criteria for artist notability. I move to keep and speedy close this discussion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Connolly[edit]

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

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

Inadequately referenced article about a poet author and playwright which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Current EL are blogs, facebook, seller listing or an article about a small theater troupe's play based on one of the books which is not significant enough meet notability threshold. My searches have brought only a few listings of books for sale and nothing significant coverage to meet the inclusion criteria. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kieron Connolly article tightened up - EL's referred to above have been removed and replaced with a link to National Library of Ireland ( the three novels published by subject are listed therein ). EL's also include reviews by Irelands national broadcaster. As an aside, the subject was never described as a poet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramaqueen12346 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Dramaqueen1236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you for your effort, the first 2 RTE.ie reviews help somewhat, but I feel they still fall into the more routine coverage and do not demonstrate enough to meet the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR thresholds yet. I have also turned all the provided EL into actual references as I believe they were intended to be. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, if this will help to bring some closure to the matter: Connolly has travelled abroad giving talks on writing a novel .. example: [23] The stage play that has just had its first outing is not based on any works previously published - and in fairness to the small theater troupe referred to, whether it be the director or some of the cast, they have worked with the likes of Robbie Coltrane and Dan Ackroyd in the past, so 'small' is a relative term. The play in question will be travelling around Ireland in the coming months, with at least one stop on the European mainland, so in an effort to be Solomon-like - or perhaps even Solomon-lite, would the wisest course of action be to park the bus for the next 12 months, remove the 'considered for deletion' tag on page, see what happens over the course of the next year, and take it from there? And just to add: this man would never describe himself as a poet, so including him in a list of poets for deletion (?) seems a bit harsh - in fairness, a poet and he didn't even know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrighan7 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Arrighan7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This does not help, we need to see proof that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball to speculate on notability, in fact it is a lagging indicator of notability.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR. The only outside sources in the article are what appear to be routine reviews by the Irish national broadcasting system; and I could not find anything else about him in a search. In fact my searching suggested that there are two other writers named Kieron Connolly (one a nonfiction author, the other a screenwriter) who are more notable than he is. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SK point 1. joe decker^talk 17:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Levine[edit]

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

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

No indication of notability -- fails WP:ARTIST (Side note: This article was created as a part of this meetup: Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina. The meetup seems to have produced a lot of articles of questionable quality/notability -- most of them have been deleted or have ongoing AfDs.) IagoQnsi (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a decent number of sources available: obituaries in the LA Times and New York Times, entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia, book sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] (unfortunately I can't read the full sections about her in those last two). I do believe this is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is this a joke? A New York Times obituary and an entry in an academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan produced by the University of Regina. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes GNG for sources showing in the footnotes, a New York Times obit and inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources are strong and she clearly was a notable sculptor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Snow Keep' two encylopedia's independent of us, with coverage -- clearly enough, Sadads (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Six of the ongoing AfDs referred to in the nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Dalton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsha Kennedy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Levine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Hauser have been initiated by IagoQnsi. The event where an article was created is not in itself a valid criterion for deletion. That articles should be deleted because related articles have been also been nominated for deletion is also not a valid criterion; The AfD procedure for deleting multiple pages does not apply here, and should not be used as an argument. Mduvekot (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I apologize, this AfD was a mistake. I move to keep and quickly close this discussion. -IagoQnsi (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We have 5 keeps to 2 deletes, and the keep votes refer to valid policies, so I close it as keep rather than as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tupper's self-referential formula[edit]

Tupper's self-referential formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This function suffers from lack of notability. The formula itself does nothing spectacular; only interpreting constants as bitmaps pixel-by-pixel. The constant itself is just a bitmap of the formula encoded as an integer. The formula itself does not output this constant, and thus is roughly as self-referential as the "echo" command is in unix when given the input "echo". I have put to question this article's notability back in November, but there has been little relevant discussion on the corresponding part of the article's talk page. Cachedio (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article acknowledges that "self-referential" is a misnomer, and describes accurately what the formula does; whether the formula is of dubious value shouldn't have too much bearing on its notability. I've seen it referred to enough for me to think it notable. Elzbenz (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think that in the end whether something is significant in itself does make a difference. This is plainly not ("bogus" is another description), and everything these days gets a certain amount of attention. So unless there are clear source indicating attention at the "notable" level (whatever that means exactly), I do not think this deserves an article. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I'm not sure whether this has been referenced anywhere, but look at 544 digit number given on the talk page (4858450636189713423582095962494202044581400587983244549483093085061934704708809928450644769865524364849997247024915119110411605739177407856919754326571855442057210445735883681829823754139634338225199452191651284348332905131193199953502413758765239264874613394906870130562295813219481113685339535565290850023875092856892694555974281546386510730049106723058933586052544096664351265349363643957125565695936815184334857605266940161251266951421550539554519153785457525756590740540157929001765967965480064427829131488548259914721248506352686630476300). The bitmap outputted by the formula is a slightly compressed version of the number and importantly, it is the smallest positive number to produce this bitmap. Thus, the formula has potential applications in data compression. Any others voting Keep, please try and find sources for this. An explanation of my mathematical reasoning is published on my talk page. Anticontradictor (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that I think your mathematical reasoning is invalid. "The first 2000 digits of pi" uses 27 bytes to represent 2000 decimal places; this is of zero significance. You have not shown any way in which your example is different. And in fact this has already been dismissed -- the only question is whether the discussion of Tupper's formula has been sufficient to make it notable. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I accept your notability guideline, I think your reasoning could use some work as well. "The first 2000 digits of pi" could theoretically be interpreted in many different ways, and there is no reasonable algorithm that turns this string into the relevant digits, whereas my argument uses a mathematical, well defined formula. Anticontradictor (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It seems to me that the question of whether it is correctly described as self-referential is somewhat peripheral to the issue under discussion. This formula is discussed in a number of "reliable" sources, such as MathWorld and the paper by Bailey, et al. That seems sufficient to establish notability of the subject, regardless of whether it is indeed self-referential. Sławomir
  Biały 15:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject has a slightly fatuous air to it, but we aren't called upon to judge the scientific value here. Notability seems just about adequate.-- Elmidae (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tupper's self-referential formula is a unique kind of math equation that needs explanation in its own article. This sort of math is relatively new and is being explored, but has not attained rigor. Therefore, "Don't Demolish" rule. Additionally, this information is relevant to mathematicians, mathematical artists, computer scientists, and number enthusiasts. - user dm667nau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dm667nau (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rescope. No prejudice against speedy renomination if there are no sources for "Chuanyue". czar 01:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qingchuan novel[edit]

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

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

Not encyclopedic, the fact that the protagonist time-travels to Qing dynasty (as compared to say, Ming dynasty) doesn't make it a different literary genre. Probably neologism as well. WP:NOTDIC Timmyshin (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Chuanyue, especially Qingchuan, is an extremely popular genre of fiction in contemporary China. Googling "清穿" (Qingchuan) will get you more than 1 million results. Chuanyue is also quite different from time-travel fiction elsewhere as it's usually not sci-fi. I think this article should be renamed "Chuanyue" and expanded to cover the entire genre, including Qingchuan. -Zanhe (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Chuanyue per Zanhe. From [28] and [29] chuanyue is the genre of which Qingchuan is a major part. Similar to the Outlander series type of historical fiction novels in the western world, which are all about the time crossover to earlier historical periods and not about the science fiction. --Mark viking (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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