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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything (Stacie Orrico song)[edit]

Everything (Stacie Orrico song) (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 noteable. No valid references Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing to suggest obvious independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the album it came from seems notable enough, that does not mean that this particular song is notable (per WP:INHERIT). Additionally, looking at the article's edit history, it seems as if we may have a conflict of interest here; the main editor (Mauricedeshawn) has edited only articles relating to Stacie Orrico (though this may just be a bit of fanboyism). Either way, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, and thus should be deleted. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 28 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MixSCAN[edit]

MixSCAN (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)

Promotional piece. No notability (A7 tag removed). I'd have tagged it G11 too for its tone. It came to attention today after >4 years because of related article (MixBANK) created by the software's publisher Dubset Media. At the very least needs more pairs of eyes to consider its tone/notability. Bazj (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and non-notable. I deleted earlier MixBANK and blocked the user account due to username issues. They created that article solely to promote their product. They contributed to the related article in question here, which prompted an A7 notice. This was changed and here we are. It would need work to asseert notability. Current sources as of this writing are non-RS -- Alexf^(talk) 12:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why do we even have a separate article for this? There is a already a subsection on the article of the company which mentions this software and that is sufficient. This page seems to be only useful for promoting the product. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have nothing to do with the company but wrote the list of music software article and this software has importance to the DJ community just as other royalty trackers are important to the intellectual property of songwriters and artists. I agree with the delete crew that it IS promotional, but suggest fixing rather than the much easier action of just deleting. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, and just because it's currently hype doesn't mean it is not notable, and if edited, important for wiki. I'm happy with wiser minds and consensus however.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 March 2016‎

• Delete as my searches only found a few expected links. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The creator of this article (Mattbishop543) has edited only this article and Thefuture.fm, which is connected to the subject of this article. This suggests some sort of WP:NPOV or WP:COI violation. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references with significant coverage. Mashable ref is mainly about the company, not the software; Mixscan is mentioned only incidentally. Business Insider article is very short, and again only an incidental mention of the software, not in depth coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage focused on the software rather than the company.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 29 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. Consensus seems to be that this term is too fringe to cover in an article or even to merge some of the content elsewhere.  Sandstein  21:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake storm[edit]

Earthquake storm (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 term has not become established in the seismological literature and this page should be redirected to coulomb stress transfer, which covers the same topic Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The term appears to have been coined by one archaeologist to refer to a particular earthquake swarm, and (as Mikenorton says) is not notable within the seismological literature. As an archaeological term it is improperly classified as an earthquake article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nom is requesting a merge, not a deletion. Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD. J. Johnson, although supporting a delete here and upset by my WP:DEPROD, did not seem to want to bring this to AfD (see Talk:Earthquake_storm#WP:DEPROD). ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am suggesting a redirect as the best solution, effectively deleting this page. It would probably be worth mentioning the term in the text of coulomb stress transfer, which anyway needs a rewrite. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Earthquake swarm. Also apparently known as earthquake sequences. ~Kvng (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you just said in your prior comment, "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." On that basis I therefore invite you to strike your "Merge" comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators are supposed to consider a merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. We don't generally cancel the AfD discussion if nominators fail to do this. We carry on and allow Merge to be considered as one of the possible AfD outcomes. ~Kvng (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you say now. But just seven hours ago, and only some dozen lines above, you said: "Merges should be discussed on article talk pages, not at AfD." You seem to be quite flexible in your statements. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Earthquake swarms are quite different to the kind of sequences described in the article. I'm still mulling over whether it is worth writing an earthquake sequence article, which would cover all earthquakes linked in space and/or time, including foreshocks, aftershocks, remotely triggered earthquakes, swarms and events linked by coulomb stress transfer. Mikenorton (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For a such a blatantly non-notable (and one-sourced) topic I thought a WP:PROD would be sufficient. But Kvng, seeing controversy where no one else does, applied a WP:DEPROD, forcing the discussion here, where he raises these other objections. Kvng has a history of doing this, with what looks nine or so DEPRODs so far today, and around twenty on the 20th. He has not shown that this term "earthquake storm" has any notability in the seismological literature, nor has he proposed to "fix" the article in any way. His effort here (and elsewhere) seems to be solely to the end of obstructing the deletion of articles by making more work for others. This is not good-faith dealing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am an active member of WP:PRODPATROL so, yes, I have been doing a lot of WP:DEPRODding. ~Kvng (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Marginal Keep or merge. In addition to the Nur references, there is a popular book on the topic, Earthquake Storms: The Fascinating History and Volatile Future of the San Andreas Fault, a Salon article and the BBC piece cited in article. With just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. Yet the concept has gained attention in the popular press and could be considered as a notable non-mainstream idea. If the concept is explicitly treated as a non-mainstream theory in the article, this could perhaps satisfy our academic colleagues while acknowledging the concept has some notability in the popular press. In the interest of consensus, a merge to a related article like coulomb stress transfer or to a more general article like earthquake sequence, would be fine, too. But the verifiability of the concept precludes deletion. Update: I found a couple of mentions of earthquake storms in the geology literature, one a secondary review article, in my reply to Dawnseeker below. These provide further sources for the article and show it to be not pure fringe. --Mark viking (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this topic is "treated as a non-mainstream theory" the principle of WP:NPOV requires it to not be given undue weight, and for that the key considerations are:

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

In the seismological literature there seems to be absolutely zero mention of this topic (it is simply not a seismological theory), and Dvorak's book that uses this term is in the popular media; it is not a reliable source. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The WP:FRINGE guidelines are helpful here. Nur, who looks to be the main proponent, is an archaeologist at Stanford who has proposed the idea of earthquake storms based on evidence they see in the archaeological record. By the criteria of WP:FRINGE/PS, this falls into the alternative theoretical formulation category. Further, this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye", as it is termed in WP:FRINGELEVEL. One can write an article on this that consistent with neutrality and due weight by explaining that this alternative theory currently has no acceptance within the geology community, but has caught the public's interest. --Mark viking (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you said above, with "just one academic proponent, the theory of earthquake storms is not yet mainstream geology. A sensationalistic book (and associated articles) in the popular press is not a reliable source determining the notability of scientific topics, and I question whether that book meets even the "notable ideas in the public eye." Note that WP:FRINGELEVEL also says: "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." (Emphasis added.) Splitting hairs with WP:FRINGE/PS is pointless, as that is about distinguishing pseudoscience from questionable science, and this topic has not reached notability as either. As to being an "alternative theoretical formulation": I ask, alternative to what? Perhaps as an explanation of the demise of some Bronze Age civiliation, but this article is not about archaeology. At best the viewpoint here is "held by an extremely small" minority (i.e., "just one"), and therefore "does not belong in Wikipedia". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Earthquake swarm, Coulomb stress transfer or Remotely triggered earthquakes, whichever is best, together with a redirection, because of the reasons already exposed by others in this discussion. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and don't leave a redirect) – Wouldn't it be better to eliminate the term from WP completely? By leaving the redirect, we are essentially (because of our broad reach) validating the term. I'm not sure that we should perpetuate its use if there has only been limited use by journalists and not at all by seismologists. Dawnseeker2000 05:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attractive as it might sound, this is not our call to make on that basis. Editorially, Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources. We don't make our own merit-based evaluations about what should and shouldn't be covered in the encyclopedia. We cover everything that meets notability requirements and for which we receive editorial contributions. ~Kvng (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely our call. Can I ask if you would create an article on the topic using the John Dvorak book as its source? I wouldn't, and that's because it's critical that we use appropriate sources for the topic. There are none, so I'm not sure why this discussion has gotten so long-winded. Mikenorton stated it succinctly in one sentence, but with a lenient outcome by leaving the redirect. Yes, it effectively deletes the content, but I'm a little less forgiving and would like to take it a step further. Dawnseeker2000 02:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences):

Appropriate sources for discussing the natural sciences include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as recent peer reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides.

It goes on about preferring sources that are "robust in methodology, published in high quality venues, and authored by widely cited researchers", etc. Dvorak doesn't qualify on any of this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fringe theory with no claim to mainstream notability. I would support a redirect if there was a suitable target; but eartquake swarm does not seem appropriate. "Eartquake storm" implies a causal cascade of events (eartquake A triggers eartquake B etc.) separated by multiple years, so it is different.

Oh, and may I suggest people to keep a cool head? Tigraan (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per J. Johnson and others. This really doesn't appear notable. Regarding the DEPROD, there's no reason to get frustrated over it. When an article is PRODded, the PROD goes at the first objection, and no explanation is required (requested and suggested, but NOT required). Please AGF on the part of Kvng, he has done a lot of good work here on Wikipedia, as have everyone else involved here in this discussion. Can't we all get along? :) Chrisw80 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We might get along a little better if a certain party did not have a continuing pattern of routinely bumping every PROD up to AfD, regardless of merit, based on incorrect or unsupportable "reasons" that fall quite short of the bar he sets for others, and forcing a bunch of extra work in cases that should have been routine deletions. I, and indeed, all of us, could have done bit more "good work here" but for this obstructionism. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD is for deletions expected to be uncontroversial. I'm not sure why you expected no controversy. A previous talk page discussion seemed to reach consensus on doing a redirect, not delete. I'm open to any suggestions about how to improve my WP:PRODPATROL work. Based on previous feedback I'm leaving well-formed reasons in edit comments and additional information on talk pages in many cases. Accusations of obstructionism is not feedback that I can use so I ask that you kindly stop. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no controversy here about the topic but your initial imagining of controversy where there was none, and your assertion that the Dvorak book establishes notability. The prior discussion raised the possibility of a redirect if there should be any objections to the deletion (there were not); the consensus was that the topic is not notable, and deletion entirely uncontroversial. Your earlier expectation that the article would survive AfD was fanciful (like a SNOWBALL's chance in hell), so forcing this AfD was a foreseeable waste of time, as a simple PROD would have reached the same result. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry to inconvenience you. ~Kvng (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you won't be quite so quick on the DEPROD trigger in the future. As to deletion discussion, would you assent to there being a consensus to delete this article, without a merge or redirect? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given a book on the subject, I would have deprodded as well. The proposed deletion was obviously controversial, as evidenced by this discussion. As far as I am concerned, there is no consensus to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a position to make an objective call on the outcome of this discussion but, from where I sit, it does not appear to be a WP:SNOW situation.

I'm happy to adjust my WP:PRODPATROL behavior based on usable feedback. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I don't beleive I have received any usable feedback from J. Johnson. ~Kvng (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng: the feedback I am giving you is that you have been too hasty to DEPROD, that you misinterpreted the initial discussion, that you over-valued Dvorak's book, and possibly misunderstand the requirements of notability and reliable sources. Hopefully you might find all of this useful as points to review. If not, then I don't know quite what else could be usefully said.

I am working at WP:PRODPATROL because I have seen a lot of cases (somewhere around 25% of all PRODs) where editors may have been too hasty to PROD. If, due to my own errors and misunderstandings, I have been too hasty to WP:DEPROD in a few cases, that's overhead I think we should be willing to tolerate. ~Kvng (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark: Perhaps you have not paid close enough attention, but quite aside from the meta-controvery about whether there is any actual controversy I would point out there is (currently) one "marginal keep or merge" vote (yours), two Merge votes (Kvng and MaeseLeon), and six Deletes. It seems to me that your concerns were amply addressed. In particular, your view that "this theory has gained some popular acceptance and may be "notable in the public eye"" is not supported by the existence of a single book, and is entirely trumped by "Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas." Your objection to deletion seems hardly credible. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a bit more of my perspective. User Emperorbma created this article late in December of 2005. From what I gather from their user page, they are an American computer programmer from Texas that speaks a little bit of Japanese, but there's no claim to being some type of scientist. Do you have to be? No, but is it important to know about who created the article? Yeah, I think so. It's part of the story. That's just the way we do things around here; anyone can create an article on anything. But you have to take that into consideration. So, looking at the initial version of the article, his only source was a blurb that was highlighting a BBC documentary on "Earthquake Storms". That probably should not have been accepted as an acceptable source for the article. That source should have been questioned right then and there. What we have here is a random Wikipedian creating an article using a random, less-than-ideal source.

The blurb about the documentary mentions the "earthquake storm" topic several times while introducing the scientists that worked on the stress changes during an impressive sequence of large and very large earthquakes that occurred in Turkey in the 20th century. Geophysicist Geoffrey King and seismologist Ross Stein both coauthored papers on the sequence and I took a look at both. King's paper was published well after the last westward-migrating event (1999 İzmit), but Stein's paper, while highlighting the risk to the city of İzmit, was published just two years prior. That's all quite spectacular, but the point here is that while looking through their papers, it was clear that they did not use the term "earthquake storm". This sequence is mentioned in our article and these scientists are literally at the heart of the matter. We should be following their tone, not the tone of some TV documentary. See the titles below for the tone that appropriate professionals use. It's not about hype, which is probably what the BBC documentary title is. This article was not done with these things in mind and I think that it's fine if we toss it (and create something else, maybe what Mikenorton was considering, if necessary). We won't lose a thing with this gone.

Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining further your position and the references. I did find a review article The AD 365 Crete earthquake and possible seismic clustering during the fourth to sixth centuries AD in the Eastern Mediterranean: a review of historical and archaeological data in the Journal of Structural Geology which mentions Nur's earthquake storm hypothesis. The reviewer takes the phenomenon of an earthquake storm in this context as unproven, but seems to regard it as a hypothesis worth mentioning. In another article A Physical Basis for Time Clustering of Large Earthquakes in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America the Nur 2000 paper is mentioned as the "most impressive evidence for large scale earthquake clustering". These two mentions don't make the theory mainstream, but they do indicate Nur's hypothesis is taken seriously by some geologists. Perhaps this hypothesis is not so fringe after all. But it does seem that no one in geology likes the term "earthquake storm". --Mark viking (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a random editor that prefers to use appropriate sources, I don't have any further statement, and will let the experts consider these comments. Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Stiros paper linked to above uses the term "earthquake 'storm'", while the Chéry et al paper says "so called earthquake storm", in neither case indicating acceptance of the term. The hypothesis that there are clusters of major earthquakes is not down to Amos Nur, but the suggestion that one of these clusters was responsible for the collapse of the Late Bronze Age is, so that's a very specific thing. Note that Manuel Sintubin in 2013 (his Archaeoseismology entry to the Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering and this 2013 paper) states that "Incorporating modern concepts of seismic storms, the myth of the Late Bronze Age seismic paroxysm around 1200 BC endured to date (e.g., Nur and Cline 2000)", so that link is not unchallenged.Chiaraba et al (2011) use "earthquake storm" to describe any major case of space-time clustering of earthquakes. Kieffer et al (page 79) use "Earthquake “storms”" to describe such a cluster. I think that we need an article that covers space-time clustering of major earthquakes, possibly within the existing coulomb stress transfer article, possibly in an aritlce on sequences, just not under this title or with this content. Mikenorton (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the references. I think we are in agreement that the term "Earthquake storm" is not in wide use in geology and that it should not be used as an umbrella term for spatial or temporal clustering. Indeed Nur's work is one bit of spatiotemporal evidence in a larger picture. I'd be happy with a merge of this article into a broader article on earthquake clustering or sequencing, or merging to the coulomb stress transfer article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Mike. I will note that one of my objections to this article isits being based on a singe source. The inadequacy of single sources, and their myopic POV, is shown with this gloss that "earthquake storms" are a "recently proposed theory" (ca. 2000). But now it appears this is an "old myth".

It would be fine with me if someone wanted to replace this article (i.e., post-deletion) with one about this term and the supposed "paroxysm" it refers to, but it would have to go a lot deeper than Nur. And it would have to clarify that it is NOT a seismological theory about earthquakes, but an archaeological theory about Bronze Age civilziations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps at best as I was uncertain what to say but this article is questionably solid as its own regardless. I would've also considered merging but if that's not the best option, then perhaps not and simply delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AustinFFA[edit]

AustinFFA (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 a notable YouTuber. No Google news results and less than a million subscribers. JDDJS (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should not be deleted because i feel AustinFFA is a notable YouTuber with a lot of subscribers. He has been in Google News before, over his "First Time Doing *Drug*" criticism. I feel that he has a very loyal fan-base and that some of the newer fans need to know more about him and get to know his channel better. This is why i believe his wikipedia page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLGRektMaster2k16 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this better satisfies the applicable notability, nothing else convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failure of WP:GNG, as being popular on Youtube does not mean you are notable in the real world. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- No coverage in reliable secondary sources, so therefore does not meet the notability criteria. In veritas (talk) 20:21, 28 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 02:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Choudhary (police officer)[edit]

Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) (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 person. Choudhary received some brief press for leveling accusations against his employers that he was punished (by receiving poor or unwanted reassignments) for pursuing prosecutions against politically connected persons. As far as I can tell, nothing came of his accusations. This article appears to be an attempt on Choudhary's part to resurrect the matter in a new forum. The article has been extensively pared down from this version, to the point where it asserts no notability at all. Had Choudhary's accusations resulted in an overhaul of the governance of the IPS, that might have made him notable, but as just a person with an axe to grind, no so much. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as A7, no claim of significance. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: definitely not an A7 candidate. You may want to check the article history. VQuakr (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Still definitely delete though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Judging from the history, this article is the remnants of a once very exhaustive vanity article by the subject himself. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa: "remnants" from yesterday? VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it stands for "Reminder: Pankaj shouldn't have violated BLP yesterday.^{[citation needed]} Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 01:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I understand why it's not speedyable, but there's no real shred of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to hear from the delete !voters what steps they took to evaluate the five news stories from the article that mention the subject, and how they determined that they do not meet WP:BASIC. This subject may well not be notable, but no one has made a decent argument thus far. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @VQuakr: The five sources I presume you are talking about are those used in the last version of the article before Anna Frodesiak cut it down to size. Let's look at them:
    1. This article from Officers' Times (a publication by and for the officers of the Indian Police Service) appears to have been written by Choudhary himself. (The English translation shows Choudhary as the author.)
    2. This, this, this, this and this are all reports about the single incident wherein Choudhary complained about being "shunted" (i.e. transferred to a less desirable posting) for prosecuting the wrong politically connected person. Choudhary's allegations made a spot of noise briefly, but ultimately came to nothing. WP:BLP1E applies here. Generally in the case of BLP1E, we might redirect to an article about the event, except there is no such article. This event was just not that notable. Lots of employees (in the IPS and elsewhere) complain that they are treated badly for wrong reasons. Choudhary might be right, or he might not, but since the case came to nothing, there's no basis of a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with above, as a result he clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even though I have to point out that he has been transferred for allegedly investigating politically-connected people not once, but twice (in 2013 and 2015). However, the coverage of both events seems so limited and so routine, especially in the developing world, that they should not really register on Wikipedia. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the sentiments so accurately expressed by WikiDan61 above. Might I add, VQuakr, no decent argument has been made to keep said article either, indeed, no one is officially protesting said deletion with a 'keep'. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @MelbourneStar: VQuakr's point (a valid one) is that arguments made at an AFD discussion should be based on Wikipedia policies, not just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do point out to me an argument in this said discussion, that has been based on the arguments you mention? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MelbourneStar: I didn't say there were any such arguments; I just pointed out that VQuakr wanted an explanation why the sources that are available are invalid, because if the sources are valid, then deleting the article might not be a wise choice. But, since we all appear to be in agreement that the sources are not valid indications of lasting notability, we have a valid case for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine, I just don't believe the sentiments made prior to VQuakr's comment were inapropriate, as VQuakr so deemed. They certainly went a lot further in explaining why the article ought to be put on the scrap heap – than those who opposed deletion, whom, well.. don't seem to exist in this discussion. Nevertheless, you're right; there is a growing consensus that this article ought to be deleted, so I shall leave it at that. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MelbourneStar: in general the tone of the AfD seemed to be much too "let's get this guy for daring to be ignorant of our inclusion criteria" rather than dispassionate assessment of the subject. I also hadn't seen any discussion that addressed the additional sources that existed in earlier versions of the article. WikiDan did a great job in his reply of addressing both issues. Since the default result of an AfD is to keep, the presence (or lack) of keep !votes isn't directly relevant. I do agree that the case for notability has not improved since I proposed its deletion. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We also have Pankaj Choudhary, which is about a politician. The user editing Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) appears to wish Pankaj Choudhary (police officer) removed and to start fresh by usurping and changing Pankaj Choudhary. See here. Please also see the history of Pankaj Choudhary to see what happened there. I'd suggest watchlisting that one. Thanks. This is all just FYI and I thought this a good place for it seeing that the editor wished this article to be promotional and now wishes it blanked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mid-ranking officer (superintendent) far too junior for an article without a very good reason, which there doesn't appear to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--no claim of significance.. autobiography written by self — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstraw99 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 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 delete as blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5)[edit]

Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have not found anything on a fifth cycle of Asia's Next Top Model. I believe this page is a hoax. Linguist 111^talk 19:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I also suspect that this is a hoax Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, I've been looking for sources and I can't find anything for a cycle/season 5. At the very least, not verifiable. Appable (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm going to speedy this as a hoax. I remember blocking someone for creating similar pages in their userspace so I'm unsure if this is a sockpuppet or not - although I am still going to block them as trying to create a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 23 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 no consensus. The article was discussed long enough, and I do not see any consensus emerging from the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Loxley[edit]

Gerald Loxley (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 aviator. He is mentioned in thepeerage.com but can't find him in Burke's Peerage (via a free search). Nothing in this article indicates notability besides being related to Lord Byron Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "free search" in Burke's Peerage - qv: BOOTH, Bt Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (incl already in refs)

• Question Delete. Does receiving the Légion d'honneur confer notability? There is nothing else to make him notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to the above, in my view, is that conferral of the Légion d'honneur in itself may not justify sufficient notability for a Wiki entry, although it is undeniably a great honour. However, Wiki notes elsewhere qv: Aerial reconnaissance in World War a "recurrent pattern of reconnaissance not gaining recognition commensurate with its importance developed during these years". Here is a chance to redress that imbalance, not to mention his family connections (ie. with the Lords Byron & Lord Bingham of Cornhill) which, in other articles, seemingly would also qualify for his inclusion. Not sure why there is an issue? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This article is not linked to by any except the lists of medal recipients. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for righting perceived wrongs. Family connections are no indicator of notability, nor is there any other. In short, that is the issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too, but this is not an attempt to right any wrong perceived or not. The fact remains that Major Loxley was a notable and decorated aviator of the First World War, qv. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk but because of the nature of his military service much of the juicy info about him will remain classified until 2018 (100 years from the end of the Great War). Let me check what is permissible to include on Wiki and revert. L'honorable —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Légion d'honneur does not confer automatic notability. Although the order is France's highest honour, the lower levels are extremely common, equating to no more than an MBE or low-level bravery decoration in British terms. Many were awarded to British officers in WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise how urgent it is to get permission of Major Loxley's WWI exploits so as to satisfy above? Awaiting clearance for Loxley's military service to be published in addition to http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9750072 (as mentioned on another page not many people have write-ups about them in the National Archives). Many thanks. L'honorable 01:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are thousands of officers' service records in the National Archives. Purely routine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I closed this discussion with a delete result for the article, but have restored the article and reopened this discussion, per discourse at my talk page (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in reply to the last question from L'honorable (talk · contribs), it is not at all urgent to view his Naval records, it will almost certainly make no difference. They are highly unlikely to reveal anything notable, any more than do the military records of most servicemen. Also, the National Archive record you refer to appears to be a single sheet, probably a standard form maintained for every serviceman with the Navy, and as such it would contain nothing to support his notability. So this is just a non-issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steelpillow: not much is known about Major Loxley publicly for the very good reason that his role in the First World War was highly secretive. It is beyond doubt that he was a notable WWI military officer; I, and others, will be in a position to disclose more info once the time bar about his military activities is lifted. Loxley's achievements are worth wider appreciation, but not worth getting into difficulties with the authorities. You seem thoroughly opposed to this pioneering British aviator of WWI, who later worked for the UN, appearing on Wiki's pages & I don't know why - perhaps because he was nominally based in Paris (or you simply don't know anything about him)? Can't think of any other reasons. Cheers, L'honorable (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. That is some of the most absurd paranoia I have met in a long time. More to the point here, you challenge my WP:GOODFAITH. No, I have no knowledge of him. My opposition is based solely on the encyclopedic need for WP:VERIFICATION, which cannot be met unless your claims can be verified by an independent account of his exploits. If he is as notable a spy as you suggest, then I am sure that such an account will eventually be told. Until then, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Once deleted, it can always be recreated again when the time is right. I am sorry that you must wait so long, but that is Wikipedia's way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say other than that I bow to your superior judgement (& look at the reference notes)? Au revoir, L'honorable (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am bowing out of this discussion since the tone of this commentary is becoming highly patronising... (eg. LOL)

• Keep. Borderline, but I think the AFC and four foreign decorations push him over the notability bar. That is quite an unusual haul for a mid-ranking officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that a fistful of medals is notable in its own right, they are all run-of-the-mill and plenty of old campaigners had similar collections. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gbawden: noting that you initially tabled this article for deletion, I trust you don't mind my highlighting its being relisted today? Presuming that it is not my place to participate in such deliberations, after subsequent review (since the deletion notice) I compared Major Gerald Loxley's WWI and later UN service with those of others already included in Wikipedia's pages qv: Category:Royal Air Force officers & Category:Royal Naval Air Service aviators and fail to see how Loxley is in any way less notable than many included in these pages. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should hope there will be a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, but how can this be achieved?

PPS. qv: Syria-Cilicia Commemorative Medal article - please advise - Major Loxley did not have two clasps so the only image available on Wikipedia is an incorrect representation (perhaps it should be taken down?) L'honorable (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a correct image of this medal for Wikipedia's use. L'honorable (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no prejudice to recreation at a later date if notability proved. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the references are to entire large websites, so WP:V isn't met. I'm not seeing anything in the article which convinces me that WP:BIO is likely to be met either. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order; the above assertion is incorrect - the vast majority of the references specifically relate to Major Loxley and his family, qv: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/31457/supplement/8986/data.pdf; https://archive.org/stream/oxforduniversity00univuoft#page/n159/mode/2up; http://www.thepeerage.com/p34697.htm#i346967; https://archive.org/details/oxforduniversity00univuoft; https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/lifestory/6862553; http://norcottweddingvenue.co.uk/; http://www.fairfordhistory.org.uk/news/wwi/the-loxley-family-and-their-connection-with-fairford/; http://whitlockfamilyassociation.com.s3.amazonaws.com/sources/references/R3158.pdf; http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol2/pp245-250; http://va.goodformandspectacle.com/things/17685. Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Necrothesp Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to note that his RAF Officer's service record says very little, temporary lieutenant in the RNVR in March 1915, Lieutenant Commander RNVR December 1916, mention he worked at the Ministry of Munitions in Paris, had two hospital visits August 1919 and November 1919, spoke French and Spanish, demobbed January 1920. Nothing remarkable, no mention of an AFC only the Legion d'honneur. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question WP:BIO refers military personnel to the standard at WikiProject Military history/Notability guide which states "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...were awarded their nation's highest award for valor, for which the Légion d'Honneur qualifies. I have never applied this standard before . . . is receipt of the award sufficient for the presumption? Or is it that it is an indicator that the coverage is likely there, but that we are not rebutting the presumption becuase there are no sources? Please instruct . . . thanks! Chris vLS

Nevermind, answer was there all along. Thanks, Necrothesp! (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after having a tidy up of the article and a search for better references I have to come to the conclusion that the supported facts dont really support notability, only the Legion d'honneur is supported by a reference most of the article is puffed out by what is non-relevant family history type stuff, I cant find any evidence that he was a pilot (certainly didnt have a RAeC licence) or was awarded an AFC. Just another British officer who did some good stuff but we have no evidence of the notability bar being passed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am frankly amazed by the amount of discussion that has emanated from my creation of this article about Gerald Loxley. I have been going through other articles of RAF & RNAS pilots/aviators and unless I am thoroughly mistaken his bio is as, if not more, worthy than many of them. I should hope that Wikipedia likes to be consistent in its approach & not because once one or two folk decree to see articles damned for no other reason than it is difficult, sometimes, to change one's mind. I am wading through a list of Grandees of Spain at the moment, and even though I know a great deal about the subject I am having difficulty in understanding some (you might say, many) of the edits made on this subject. Could somebody tell me what is wrong with Major Gerald Loxley as compared with other RAF officers on Wikipedia? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • & whilst this experience has been illuminating, should any doubts remain, please do not hesitate to ask at L'honorable (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC) and I trust you can see your way to removing the article for deletion tag before too much further energy is expended?[reply]

    WP:OTHER is not an argument in its own right. It may well be that articles on some other airmen also need deleting. What is important with the present article is whether it meets the criteria at WP:PERSON and WP:MILPEOPLE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    But you are right that we sometimes make inexplicable or downright bad edits, we are all guilty of that at one time or another. I think you were just unlucky to pick such a borderline case for one of your first articles and I do hope you will not hold it against us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelpillow: your message above is appreciated; I certainly won't hold the fact that Wikipedia applies such scrutiny against anyone! Having reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would seem to me that Loxley more than qualifies, not least on account of being director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18). I also note that Gbawden launched a somewhat partisan appeal for comment among Wikipedians: "Can Milhistorians please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley?" Is this the best way for Wikipedians to petition to get their way? Thank you again for your helpful comments, and I trust you may be able to view Loxley's inclusion on Wikipedia favourably. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Loxley interest will no doubt extend beyond military to social history, Europe in the early 20c, etc..., but let's get over this hurdle first - many thanks

May not be notable but "director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18)" is not something in the article and we can only work on what we can see, we cant base discusssion on unknown attributes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L'honorable Do not mistake a request for additional input into this discussion as a partisan attempt to get rid of this article. Nothing in my request on the MILHIST page indicated any bias. Having said that I still think this person fails GNG and is not notable but we are scrabbling for reasons to keep it. Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbawden: much appreciate your being in touch and for endeavouring to keep this article. What is GNG by the way? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is Wikipdedia's general notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, often linked to using the shorthand WP:GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Necrothesp's final view that Loxley's decorations signify considerable if unobtrusive notability. Such unobtrusiveness was only to be expected of someone successfully engaged in military intelligence. But his military decorations, reflecting this success, speak for themselves. Ammochostos Ammochostos (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that with the references provided here and in the article, that this person does meet WP:GNG, if barely - there are many primary/non-reliable sources to wade through here unfortunately. I think one of the confusing parts of all of this is that the article suffers from quite a bit of WP:OR. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this is convincing enough to keep at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you are aware that we have no reliable references that he was awarded anything other than the Legion d'honneur and the Order of the Crown of Italy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @MilborneOne: I am beginning to think that I am wasting my time here - you have reworded the Loxley article making it read incorrectly. I have now amended it to read correctly again, ie. he did not receive the Order of the Crown of Italy in 1919 - he received it in 1916. This tag for deletion is a major put off for anyone wishing to add anything sensible to the article, particularly since so much argument has ensued - only seasoned Wikipedians know the significance of this tag & to me it looks pretty serious. Major Loxley's endeavours relate to Spain as well - there was much to keep an eye on in that country during the First World War - he was also fluent in French as somebody blandly noted above (but didn't care to point out its significance). Loxley was very much a pioneer in military intelligence which involved him in flying the planes - they weren't big enough to have crews in those days. Also someone I think you has gone to the trouble of deleting many of his military decorations (including the Imperial War Museum website entry - citing it as being a blog!), which can I only presume to be some sort of attempt to dumb down his article thereby reducing the likelihood of Loxley as being regarded as notable. So concerned am I about some Wikipedians' apparent disregard for British WWI veterans that I have had the privilege of being allowed by a member of his family to take a photo of his baptismal bible & a family photograph which I have now uploaded for the benefit of Wikipedia. It should go without saying that there should be no more messing around with this entry, such as deleting Loxley's being a recipient of the French and Belgian Croix de guerre (he had many more decorations for your information), and a decision should be made promptly as to whether or not it should be kept. I suggest keep. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. This whole process started out with Gbawden falsely stating Loxley couldn't be found in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage - when will it stop?

The main problem is you keep bringing out information that is not supported by the references and not mentioned in the article, clearly if you have sources that support what you have said on this it could swing the argument. I removed the "IWM" reference as it is actually a family history blog that was being used to support the AFC, it is user provided content so is not official and not reliable, if he did in fact have an AFC why is it not mentioned in the London Gazette? The other awards are not supported by references either which is why they are removed. You clearly have a source for this information, if it is reliable then just add it to the the article, I would suggest that some of this discussion is best taken up on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding Loxley did not return to the UK until a couple of years after the Great War being awarded his gongs by Special Dispensation (since he was abroad). HMG no doubt didn't necessarily want to highlight his military activities overseas, and I see no need for yet another layer of bureaucracy by way of a Talk page, which you have set up. What will this achieve? Also it would appear that the Imperial War Museum website is regulated by an IWM curator, namely Charlotte Czyzyk: qv. https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/ . If Major Loxley is not of sufficient note in your opinion so be it - I really had not anticipated getting so bogged down with this so please make a decision - much appreciated. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is where discussion not related to deletion should happen not here, His notability for an article must be based opn reliable sourced facts, we cant make a decision on what we can not see or prove. The decision to delete will be taken by a somebody else not involved in the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - there is/was/has been clearly plenty of info about Major Loxley (both present and deleted) which can enable an independent arbitrator in the decision-making process, so unless you have other plans I suggest we leave the arbitrator to it. By the way, I trust "we can't make a decision" refers to the collective "we", ie. an abstract concept of all Wikipedians together ..... "the decision to delete" statement also smacks of some degree of certainty on your part of its being deleted (unless you meant to say "decision to delete or not")? Or, are you judge, jury and..? It's all getting a bit much - there will surely be thousands and thousands of articles on Wikipedia worthy of deletion if Loxley is deemed unnotable. ¡Que pasa! L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gerald Loxley @MilborneOne: you still carry on - I've already explained it, except I suppose your only saving grace is that the wording keeps getting mangled. 1. he flew airplanes; 2. he was spotted for aerial reconnaissance; 3. he still flew airplanes (for reconnaissance); 4. this is the bit you keep protesting about.... However, I still fail to understand what your problem is with this article? Why oh why set up yet another layer of chat show - nothing useful will come out of it. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not least to free MilborneOne for more Wiki-useful missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks![reply]

@MilborneOne: so as to save wasting a lot more time: what is your preference? Delete / Keep ? Many thanks L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already declared one way or the other further up the page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which way? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. quoting your "Comment just to note that his RAF Officer's service record says very little, temporary lieutenant in the RNVR in March 1915, Lieutenant Commander RNVR December 1916, mention he worked at the Ministry of Munitions in Paris, had two hospital visits August 1919 and November 1919, spoke French and Spanish, demobbed January 1920. Nothing remarkable, no mention of an AFC only the Legion d'honneur. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)"

Please could we bring an end to this childish contre-temps? By now if you have not got a handle on who Loxley was & what he did for the war effort (qv. "nothing remarkable"!) then I cannot see what will ever satisfy you. L'honorable (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to end it is to stop rising to the bait. Just don't reply. Whoever makes the final judgement will not be a child but will make up their own mind as to whose points are the more valid - whoever had the last word is not going to impress anybody. (and I stand by that even if it's me). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 29 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 as this seems clear enough and continuing it is unlikely to clarify any better, it's worth noting that degree-awarding schools are notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad[edit]

People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad (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 private college. Article is purely promotional, created by someone with a COI. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 08:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People Institute of Management Studies is affiliated to the Kannur University as per the website of the latter: http://14.139.185.42/newsite/colleges/ksd%20mba%20colleges.htm

• Comment The above is by the article's creator. The link provided does not mention Kannur University. Even if it did, this Institute is not notable and the article appears to have been created simply to promote a commercial organisation. Wikipedia is not a directory of organisations. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 09:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kannur University doesn't give the name of the university in it's sub pages. It is strange. --Prof TPMS (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per the long-established consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AusLondonder (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that we are dealing with: "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." It is being claimed that this is a department of Kannur University and there is no indication that it has made any significant contributions in its field. What we have is a bare bones directory entry which at the very least should be merged with the University's article. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @AusLondonder, please review your !vote, as the consensus you are citing does not appear to apply to this page, per Harry's comment above. Thanks. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kannur University. I found no significant coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be a non-notable subunit or department of a university. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification from the author: Kannur University has its own departments in different parts of Kannur and Kasaragod. In addition, they also have affiliated colleges in these areas. People Institute of Management Studies, Munnad is a duly affiliated college of Kannur University and the fact is clearly mentioned in the website of the University which is given as a reference in the page. The college is certainly new but not very new:it is already six years old. It is a very notable organization because it is an MBA college and the infrastructure requirements and other conditions for MBA colleges is quite extensive in the Kannur University jurisdiction, as far as I can understand.
• Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. In India there are thousands of colleges affiliated to large universities; these are, however, independent institutions, not sub-units of those universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. This is an independent college, NOT a sub-unit or a department of Kannur University. Vipinhari || talk 17:09, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Caforio[edit]

Bryan Caforio (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:POLITICIAN. Article subject is a congressional candidate who has never held elective office and who fails to meet WP:GNG apart from political candidacy. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Completely disagree with deleting. The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria. Caforio is not a candidate for a minor position in an small city, but rather a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in a hotly contested election year. His candidacy is being covered by the L.A. Times. Removing the article would be viewed as politically motivated and a form of censorship. In addition, Caforio is notable for being a U.S. collegiate mock trial champion, not once but twice. KentSteelman (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see point #3 under WP:POLITICIAN, which states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." It looks to me like the only significant coverage Caforio has received is in regards to his congressional candidacy, which would fail WP:POLITICIAN. I don't think the mock trial championship, covered only in the college newspaper The Daily Bruin, is enough to pass notability requirements. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If by "The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria" you mean the edit where I deleted the speedy deletion notice, no, that's not a determination that the article is sufficiently notable. It was just my finding that the article did not meet the requirements for the WP:SPEEDY deletion process, which

1. merely requires a claim of significance, which is a lower bar than the notability standard;
2. is just the opinion of one editor (me), and doesn't override a consensus that may form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016#District 25. I find it odd that this candidate isn't presently mentioned there. I also agree with Champaign Supernova that the individual does not presently meet GNG. He may or may not ever reach that level, hence the redirect to the relevant section of the election article as he has had some coverage in the context of his campaign and is a reasonable search term. This is neither "politically motivated" nor "a form of censorship." I've created redirects for several 2016 candidates who don't presently meet GNG (Jimmy Panetta is one redirected to this page). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't understand what Muboshgu is talking about. Here's what I just saw on United States House of Representatives elections, 2016:

Steve Knight (Republican)[134] Bryan Caforio (Democratic)[135] Jeffrey Moffatt (Republican)[136] Lou Vince (Democratic)[137]

In addition, notability is clear from the fact that the Los Angeles Times has followed his candidacy and references in the article are from that newspaper" 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'. Given that there is no agreement here, the article should stay.

KentSteelman (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the page I linked: United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016, where he isn't mentioned at all. Notability is not "clear" as the LA Times has mentioned him, but I do not agree that they've given him "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local media have an obligation to cover local elections taking place in their own local coverage area, so coverage of a candidate in that context falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot confer the passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as indicated by Muboshgu, per WP:BLP1E. His candidacy is getting coverage, but basically in the local press (LA Times is local to his candidacy). Mock trial coverage shown is just his own school's paper; the championship was not for him but for the team. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think its time we changed the rule, and allowed that in a two party system the candidate of each party for national office is sufficiently notable. But I would be much more skeptical of candidates who have not yet won their party's nomination,as is the case here. They don't become of more than local interest until they do win the primary, for only then is it clear that their election might change the balance of power in the legislature. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What DGG proposes couldn't apply exactly in this case, as there are not party nominations, per se. California uses a Top Two system - the top two vote getters from the primary, regardless of party, go to the general election. This means that the final race can be two members of the same party. Parties are specifically barred from "nominating" anyone, although they can endorse a candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not DeleteMuboshgu (talk) Really, if you had looked at that section you would have seen that the last time United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016 for the 25th district was updated was in mid-year 2015, and you know from the article about Caforio that he declared his candidacy at the end of 2015, as clearly documented in the Los Angeles Times (an internationally recognized newspaper, not a "local" rag.) It would have taken less time to update it than to write about how "odd" it is here. I just updated the site with the info about Caforio entering the race and Gutzeit withdrawing from the race, and it took me 2 minutes.

Referring to the Los Angeles Times as a "local" reference is misguided. The LA Times is, according to Wikipedia the 4th largest US newspaper by circulation and therefore represents the "significant coverage":

Rank # 4 Los Angeles Times Los Angeles California circulation: 653,868 Tribune Publishing

There is absolutely no pressing need to delete the Caforio article now. We have a disagreement, and it therefore should not be deleted, particularly since the article is very well referenced. The California primary takes place June 7th, less than three months from now. I suggest everyone just follow good Wikipedia advice, back away and breathe deeply until then. No hurry. KentSteelman (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the Times has a wide circulation, it is LA based and is expected to cover local elections just like any other paper; the district the campaign is for is in good part within Los Angeles county. This is not indicative of import the way that a similar-sized paper not local to the election (say, The Chicago Tribune) offering a couple-dozen sentences on his candidacy would be. --13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing you have said has changed my !vote, because nothing you've said has argued that he has received "significant" coverage. One piece in the local newspaper, no matter how big that paper is, is not significant coverage. Another example: Josh Gottheimer is a candidate for Congress this cycle, and I created his article this cycle. A previous version was deleted in 2014 despite having a reference from The New York Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As yet unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy (e.g. having preexisting notability as a writer, an athlete, an actor, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run for it, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. And local media covering the campaign does not get him over the bar, because local media have an obligation to cover local politics — so such coverage is merely routine and cannot confer notability. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at best as he's still questionable for the applicable politicians notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete candidates for the United States house are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - under the current guidelines, does not pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Caforio is notable for his U.S. mock trial championships and All-American status alone. Just because the references to his mock trial leadership and wins so far are local newspapers, it doesn't mean that wasn't covered elsewhere, and Wikipedia guidelines say such an article should be allotted time to provide more references, not be deleted. Caforio was also highlighted in the New York Times today more as a spokesman for the people affected by the disaster caused of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. I can imagine SoCal Gas (see: Southern California Gas Company) would love to have the article about Caforio deleted, but let's not. Bruriyah (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No guideline on Wikipedia says a U.S. mock trial championship or status as an "All-American" mock trial lawyer grants notability. A lack of sources on this person suggests why that is the case. You have to show us where it was covered, because it doesn't seem to have been covered anywhere else. Regarding the NYT story you mention, he seems like a bit player in a story on a different subject. It's not in depth coverage of him. I can imagine SoCal Gas couldn't care less about whether or not Caforio has a Wikipedia article. It's not a factor here because Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 31 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Tomson[edit]

Ross Tomson (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 many citations of his works (collaborations), and little other coverage found of either himself or his company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A number of sources have been added to the article, but most of them are connected to Tomson, press releases, or simply "Ross Tomson said" attributions in a discussion of something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepComment Article was added to add clarity to who Ross Tomson is and his current career and overall biography as he has started to become a figure in Houston business and through that and his dealings is thereby notable. Article is heavily cited and well verified by independent sources that verify what is written to be factually accurate.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are numerous citations to articles written by others about Ross Tomson and his companies. See the following citations: Houston Business Journal citation, Rice News citation, Offshore Magazine citation, Energy.gov citation, and the Texas Bar citations -- all of which are independent sources not tied to Tomson, but written about him or his companies. Tomsontech (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review these. I pretty much covered them in my first comment, above.

• Rice: A single sentence out of an entire article, "The Rice team is working with project leader Brine Chemistry Solutions LLC, a Houston company founded by Tomson’s son, Rice alumnus Ross Tomson" isn't substantial coverage of Ross Tomson. Nor, when this Rice project is written about on Rice's own website, is it independent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rice: User should understand that this project was a joint Rice University Brine Chemistry Solutions project. The cited source is about Ross Tomson's wholly owned company - Brine Chemistry Solutions and is referenced to show the collaboration between Rice University and Brine Chemistry Solutions, as this was done under Ross Tomson's direct supervision and part of his leadership of the company.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, it says a lot about Brine Chemistry Solutions. It says nothing about Ross Tomson. And it's Rice talking about Rice's own project. Not independent. A similar example: an actor may be profiled on the websites of numerous theaters in connection with shows at those theaters in which the actor is performing. These profiles aren't independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It in fact mentions Ross Tomson by name. It is also talking about a US DOE project that is partly being performed at Rice, not Rice's own project. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've begun repeatedly bringing up points I've already addressed. In this case, it was above, when I wrote that a mention by name "isn't substantial coverage" of the person whose name it is. And it is about activity going on at Rice. It isn't arms-length coverage of a person with whom Rice has no involvement. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Offshore: This is an example of one of the scenarios I already noted. He is merely being quoted. Though the article is about his company, it isn't about him. (Notability is generally not considered to be inherited.)

• Offshore: As should be clear by the article on Ross Tomson, his companies and Ross Tomson are intertwined because the company the wholly owned (and founded) by Ross Tomson and thereby this article discusses activities that Ross Tomson was engaged in through his company Brine Chemistry Solutions. What makes Ross Tomson notable is the fact that he has started this company that works on numerous projects like this one, which garner support from the media including this which was by Rice's media. In addition, this has nothing to do with inherited notability. Suggest a detailed read of the citation. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to my earlier comment about how notability is not generally considered to be inherited. Technically, people can write whole books about a company, but if they never mention the person who owned the company, and he doesn't have coverage of his own, then that person isn't notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Energy.gov: This can hardly be considered significant coverage of him when neither his first nor last name appears on the page.

• Energy.gov: Again this user fails to see that this coverage is directly about Ross Tomson's company - Brine Chemistry Solutions (now part of Tomson Technologies) and this project was directly overseen by Ross Tomson himself. I suggest edits to the Ross Tomson page to make direct involvement more obvious to the casual reader. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See my previous reply. Also, it's the page on Energy.gov that someone would have to update to talk at length about Ross Tomson himself, for it to serve as a source for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Texas Bar Association: It's a routine database listing that, at best, verifies that he's a lawyer. It isn't "coverage", per se. No contribution to a finding of notability, any more than being listed in the phonebook is.

• Texas Bar Association: Yes, that's the point of this citation, to verify that part of the Ross Tomson article.Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine that it's serving that role, verification, in the article. But you brought it up to me in the context of this discussion of his notability. And I'm responding to that by explaining that it has no role in assessing this person's notability.

Of all these, the Houston Business Journal is the only one that comes close. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Houston Business Journal: This unsolicited article about Ross Tomson verifies the notability of Ross Tomson and factually verifies parts of the Ross Tomson article. Tomsontech (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're conflating verifiability with notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. This article is written about Ross Tomson is meets all the guidelines for notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition to the citations above verifying factual information throughout the article, Tomson's journal publications have 10 citation from other publications and are themselves valid citations not originated by Tomson. Tomsontech (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another citation to an outside written source was added, supporting the Ross Tomson page. Please see citation to Materials & Performance magazine - August 2013. Tomsontech (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let username Tomsontech (name change request pending to be in line with wikipedia guidelines) know how to best prevent deletion of the page and also allow for review / verification of the contents of the page.Tomsontech (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namechange successful. Foxglove2016 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Getting outside of a few counterpoints from above, it's clear that while there are some citations that may be useful for verification of this page, there are some that clearly show notability at a level to satisfy the Wikipedia standards and thereby this deletion request should be removed and the page allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxglove2016 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears well-written and, despite the conflict of interest (user Tompsontech writing an article about the founder of Tompson Technologies), appears to have been written from a relatively neutral point of view. My biggest concerns are the question of notability, the unsourced nature of some of the biographical information, the fact that most of the references are self-published, and the aforementioned conflict of interest. The latter especially leads me to believe the intent behind this article was self-promotion.

Regarding the question of notability, while there are a handful of secondary sources to support the subject's importance, I don't know that the coverage necessarily qualifies as "significant," per the notability guidelines for people. As such, I second Largo Plazo's nomination for deletion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks Erick Shepherd, however please consider this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics. This subject matter is clearly, among other things, an academic (scientist and researcher) having over a dozen journal articles published. This of course gives a different threshold for notability as per the article referenced. It would appear that he falls within a few different categories of people as per the notability article and on the whole appears to pass this notability test for people. In addition, may I suggest that some edits perhaps are necessary to address your biggest concern of the biographical information -- if that is the area you identify, perhaps removal of those non-referenced parts should be removed without deletion of the page.Foxglove2016 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the notability guidelines for academics, "having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are." His publications do not in themselves contribute to his notability unless they have had significant impact in their respective fields. That isn't to say that they have not, but there is little yet in the references to indicate that they have, and so the question of whether notability has been established is still somewhat unclear.

With regards to the biographical information, I don't think that their presence or removal would impact the outcome of the deletion proposal since the challenge initially posed was one of notability. However, should the proposal result in the article being kept, removal of the content in question or relevant citation to support it would be warranted in order to keep the article encyclopedic. If that is the verdict, I will be happy to help implement those edits. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per the aforementioned issues. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is currently convincing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to cobble together a long set of laregely weak and irrelevant and references that as a while fail to establish any kind of real-world notability for this individual.
• Delete. There is nothing here that wouldn't be better in a LinkedIn profile, but really, WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aniela Majewski[edit]

Aniela Majewski (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)

Simply receiving a patent does not alone confer notability. Sources on the page include a blog post and a link to the historical patent. The trivial mentions online don't seem to suggest anything notable about her. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete- As said in the nomination, there are not enough contributions which make Aniela Majewski notable. Fails general notability.Nik.gourley (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to say, if deleted, leave a redirect to Sanitary napkin. But I say she isn't mentioned there at all, which is not encouraging. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better and this current article is still questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Getting a patent does not make someone notable, or even show that the product was ever actually made. Total lack of secondary sources to show anything appraoching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scarselli diamonds[edit]

Scarselli diamonds (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)

Notability here is very minor, and limited essentially to a) they have occasionally sold very large diamonds, and b) they were interviewed by CBS news for a fluff piece: "wow, that's a big diamond".

The article in its initial state was nauseatingly promotional. Once the advertising speak was cut out, what is left is really not much beyond a company listing. Does not meet WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to find any significant coverage about the company. There are a few mentions, mostly trivial. The article itself is too promotional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I also found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 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 delete. OR, POV, not notable, unencyclopaedic tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality architecture[edit]

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

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

I would nominate this for speedy deletion if I felt it fit any of the categories. This is clearly a paper with very notable OR and POV writing and is not notable. JDDJS (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT, I'd say. An article may well be possible on this topic but this isn't it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Copyright infringement. Per Earwig much of this article is copied word for word from several sources. — Maile (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - yes, this appears to be a copyvio. It is written in what we'd consider to be an essay-like way, all WP:OR and WP:POV, and it has the hallmarks of a copy-and-paste straight into the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - this does appear to be copyright violation. It is apparently a term used to refer a sub-field of architecture, but not sure if it's a notable area for its own article. Given the copyright issue, that question must be left for another day. Chris vLS (talk) 04:04, 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 Merge as this seems clear enough to close and history is still archived so it's mergeable if needed later (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Waring Darwin (infant)[edit]

Charles Waring Darwin (infant) (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, notability mostly derived from his father The Banner talk 23:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found a chapter of this book (published by Oxford University Press) dedicated to the subject. Mhhossein (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The relevance to Darwin's writings is notable. Could it be merged with Darwin's page? Chris vLS (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sources. Also, the article potentially covers the coincidences and connections between the infant being born and dying at Down House, the infant being son of Charles Darwin who described evolution (requires genetics), the child's Down syndrome being a genetic disease, and the Down for whom Down's syndrome is named being a relative, John Langdon Down (one of whose sisters married into the Darwin family). That Charles Darwin had this son, and that it affected his thinking about evolution, is highly significant. And that Darwin himself advised against consanguinity (e.g. marrying a first cousin, as he had done), based on his developed knowledge of genetics/evolution and his having had this son. It would burden the very important Charles Darwin article to go into these conspiracy-theory-like relationships. --doncram 16:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longish quote from Steensma source:

Much later, Charles Darwin Sr—ever attentive to the workings of biological principles in his own family—worried about to what extent the fact that he and Emma were first cousins had predisposed his deceased children to their illnesses. He publicly advocated collecting such data as part of the British National Census for 1871, a suggestion that was rejected because of concerns over privacy.1(p230) There was growing awareness in the late 19th century that “inbreeding” contributed to the development of certain ailments. Darwin had proposed natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, but he had no mechanistic insights into the potential problems of consanguinity, because the rediscovery of Mendel's work had not yet occurred and there was no clear concept of genetics. If Annie Darwin died of tuberculosis and Charles Waring had Down syndrome, these illnesses indeed started “at home,” but not for the reasons Darwin envisioned. There is no evidence that consanguineous partnerships predispose to either condition.

The tremendous advances in cellular and molecular biology in the century and a half since the publication of Origin of Species have highlighted the analogy between the development of cancer clones and the evolution of new species. Only very recently has it been demonstrated that one of the clearest examples involves GATA1 mutations arising in infants with the very illness that likely afflicted the great naturalist's youngest son. What would Darwin have thought?

I think this is worth explicating in the encyclopedia and the appropriate place is this separate article. --doncram 17:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what did baby Darwin do to reach notability? As far as I know, notability is not inherited but this article derives its notability from daddy Charles Darwin. The Banner talk 22:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Redirect to Charles Darwin#Children. This infant is already mentioned there, but a sentence or two could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Only notable through other Darwins. Anmccaff (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As not being notable on his own. It's interesting, though. MelanieLamont (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the mite deserves a paragraph and a redirect, but not an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Redirect per ChiswickChap. Blythwood (talk) 08:34, 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 delete. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olja Hrustic[edit]

Olja Hrustic (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 actress: lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, simply background characters. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I can not agree that she is non-notable actress. I think that the IMDB and the Playbillvault are appropriate and reliable sources. The fact that she has played leading and supporting roles in more than 20 movies and shows is additional reference, which proves that this actress has significant career. I ask you to reconsider your stances. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I present you another reference for mentioned article. It is the Playbill magazine, edition from 2012. On this link you can check it: Olja Hrustic. When you click on "Inside the Playbill" you can read some details from actress` biography. Since the Playbil is a well renowned magazine I suggest you once again to keep this article. Also, via broadway.com you can witness that she used to play in The best man by Gore Vidal. By the way, I still think that the IMDB is well reliable source, since their staff are checking accuracy of editing, similar as on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2016
• IMDb is not a reliable source. The Playbill and Broadway.com sources do not represent significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has had some prominent roles in feature films, a third and a fourth billing and a lot of tv one-episode billings, am looking for better refs. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Correct me if I am wrong, but in Wikipedia`s article related to the citing IMDb is not stated that IMDb is not a reliable source. There are questions regarding the appropriate and inappropriate uses, but it is an issue for another debate. However, if citing IMDb is not reliable, then we have a problem with a plenty of articles related to living persons from the film industry. I will not point on any of them, but many of articles provide coverage only from IMDb or some tabloids. On the other hand, I cannot agree that The Playbill magazine is not independent reliable source. Since this article provides objective information, I believe that Wikipedia policy is not violated at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. After seven days of a constructive discussion, I have the same stance: this article should be on Wikipedia. I am sure that the Playbill magazine is a reliable source. Also, citing IMDb is not inappropriate. Once again, the information on this article is general and objective. The actress is relatively renowned in the US independent film industry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've un-bolded your second !vote, and struck your third. You only get one !vote per discussion here, although you are welcome to continue to contribute to the discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Playbill does not contain significant coverage of the subject. IMDb should only by used to cite writing credits marked "WGA" and MPAA ratings reasons supplied by the MPAA.^{WP:Citing IMDb} IMDb contains user-generated content. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She has been in many notable films. She has plenty of references from reliable sources. I see no reason why she would be considered non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not inherited. What sources are those? — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for persons nor that for entertainers. Insufficent coverage in reliable third party sources. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, Uncle Milty, I understood. Talking about her education, the William Esper Studio is quite notable among the schools of performing arts. During her career, she used to work with John Larroquette and Michael Wilson, Robert Rodriguez, Rob Zombie, Maria Beatty etc. There is a lot of references which confirm that cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her credits aren't significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Within the Notability (people) article has been stated as follows: “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.“ It is obvious that her career meets this criteria. Honestly speaking, I do not know which measures you use for assessment whose credits are significant or not. The most important, we should insist on the same standards. I highlight that the independent film industry is much different from the Hollywood A production, thus the notability of actors/ actress varies. We could discuss all day long which production is more artistic, but the point is that both of them should be represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bunch of bit parts ("Blues girl","student","Russian girlfriend") don't come close to establishing WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 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 Straight Line Stitch. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight of Our Lives[edit]

The Fight of Our Lives (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. XXN, 15:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Straight Line Stitch ~Kvng (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Straight Line Stitch Berti118 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Straight Line Stitch Pupsbunch (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

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

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

• Keep because while a redirect might serve, BEFORE seems to show this album as getting enough genre attention to meet WP:NALBUMS. IE: [1] and [2] for instance. Jus' sayin. And while nice were it done, WP:NEXIST does not mandate the thing be sourced just that is eventually sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The two reviews given by MichaelQSchmidt don't constitute substantial coverage in significant sources. The king of the sun (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as there's still nothing for a solidly better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 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 clear consensus here is that notability is lacking. If anyone's interested in working on it, will be happy to move to userspace or a draft, just ask. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Earth Ghana[edit]

Friends of the Earth Ghana (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)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searches found nothing better and I should note I myself patrolled this at NPP, keeping to mind plans to deletion since it seemed questionably notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing notable about the organisation. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete why is this not notable to you? for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic since the organisation is the biggest (i believe) environmental organisation in their country. you would not delete the article of greepeace USA, so why this one?. —User:macsbetter
  • That is a misunderstanding of what "notable" means on Wikipedia, macsbetter. Essentially, it refers to the coverage of a subject in reliable, independent sources. Greenpeace is the subject of that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WeakKeep - based on a quick search, I have found some sources that might be considered to establish notability. See, for example, this book chapter, some newspaper coverage, and some agency coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just realised that the book chapter author is not independent of the organisation. Still, the organisation has received significant amounts of EU funding, which has attracted some press coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep in light of the Chicago Tribute source found by Worldbruce below. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Some" press coverage, yes, but substantial coverage, no. And "for Ghanaians this is an interesting topic" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The king of the sun (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The recommendations to delete seem to be ignoring alternatives to deletion, such as merging or redirecting to Friends of the Earth. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy because the author, who is new to Wikipedia, appears committed to trying to improve it, and because although the organization is not obviously notable, neither is it obviously non-notable. As Ghana's first environmental NGO (established in 1986) it makes a reasonable claim to significance. I'm impressed that it drew several paragraphs in the Chicago Tribune 30 years ago.[3] There is international coverage throughout the 1990s and 2000s relating to its position on logging, mining, oil and gas development, and geneticially modified crops; and there is continuing local coverage, such as [4] and [5] (the text portion of which is only part of the introduction to the audio). More time is needed to properly search the period and assess the aggregate depth of the sources found. Even if that determines that this is not a viable stand-alone topic, material from the research and the userfied article could be used to significantly improve Friends of the Earth, Forestry in Ghana, and related articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article clearly needs lots of work, but that could be a good alternative to deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - Current article does not warrant keeping, but Worldbruce's assessment is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I am impressed with the Chicago Tribune coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 1 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Havdalah.com[edit]

Havdalah.com (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)

Was prodded by User:DGG but then deprodded by User:Kvng; I agree with DGG so I'm bringing it to AfD. There's no indication of notability at all. Having thousands of viewers is maybe a credible claim of significance (which is why I'm not speedy deleting), but it's not even close to being a sufficient indicator of notability, and there's no other claim of notability in the article. IagoQnsi (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Could not find any additional sources to establish notability. The one cited in the article ([6]) does seem workable so if someone finds another, I could be convinced to change my !vote. ~Kvng (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. there are a number of such websites. There is no evidence that this particular one is significant. the only material I can find is he same as cited just above, and it is merely an announcement that it is going to be started. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of this suggests satisfying the applicable notability, best deleted for now restarted when better is available. SwisterTwister talk 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only thing noteworthy about the site is its creator. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 28 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Anderson[edit]

Darrell Anderson (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)

Seems like an obvious case of one event. Subject is only known because he deserted, a subject covered by List of Iraq War resisters. Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but certainly keep his entry in the list article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kal & Ada volleycup[edit]

Kal & Ada volleycup (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 RS source. Greek Legend (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now - Needs sourcing rather than deletion. A quick search indicates that there is quite a bit of interest in this subject, although nearly all of it is in Swedish. perhaps it is suitable for Swedish wikipedia, but in light of the comments of others, I've decided to change my !vote to Delete.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Sports related articles are given leniency in Wikipedia. They will not pass general notability guidelines, still they will be kept. Even Swedish name search has no news --Greek Legend (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because niche sport articles are still useful for the people who are in that sport, even if that isn't that many people.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying anything about this topic only, I have seen that few sports articles are unsourced and there is no Google news result. Even though wikipedians talks about WP:GNG, in case of sports related clubs, teams and tournaments this WP:GNG policy is not followed. Greek Legend (talk) 06:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific guidance on notability for sporting subjects is at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the guidelines for sporting persons, sporting events are not really covered there.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy for now. If there are no references, it should be moved out of article space into user space to allow the user to add sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, and it's claim to be "one of Sweden's biggest senior volleyball tournaments" is not enough. I guess userfy would be okay, but I'm not convinced it'll ever be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Move to Draft instead as this is not yet acceptable with its current state and could be salvaged aside if needed for further work. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG. If someone wants to take over the article, wouldn't be against moving it to draft space.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 31 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Cummings[edit]

Marshall Cummings (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; Google offers nothing. —swpb^T 16:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the user's contribution history, it seems to be a single purpose account. I suspect possible self-promotion. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Unsourced BLP lacking notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's simply nothing imaginable for better notability, best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of proper notability. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Meatsgains FiendYT ★ 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the aforementioned question of notability. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CandyFlip (film)[edit]

CandyFlip (film) (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 Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. Unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources, except the sole link cited as reference. utcursch | talk 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking further:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and through WP:INDAFD: "CandyFlip" "Shanawaz Nelikunnil" "Shanawaz NK" "Balasubramanyam TC" "Prashant Prakash" "Prakash Raj" "Kalki Koechlin" "Gulshan Devaiah" "Valeriya Polyanychko"

• Keep. In not being dismissive, the TImes of India article is quite in-depth and informative about this completed film, and in looking further, we have other sources available with which this stub can be expanded and sourced. WP:NFis met. No need to delete what can be improved through regulasr editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Which "other sources" are you referring to? I performed an extensive search with both "CandyFlip" and "Candy Flip" before initiating this AfD. Ignoring random blogs (which are not WP:RS), I found exactly 4 news stories which mention this movie:

1. The Times of India article linked above.
2. [7] The article is about another topic, and contains a passing mention that the film is being shot.
3. [8] An interview; contains exactly one line about the film: "There’s an indie called Candy Flip set in a shack in Goa that I’m also doing."
4. [9] Another interview that contains only one line about the film: "Candyflip is also in the pipeline."

I don't think an unreleased indie film passes WP:GNG when there is exactly one news article (from 2014) that covers it substantially. utcursch | talk 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You offer no proof that it was not released, but then I admittedly do not have access to Hindi offline hardcopy news sources. And even if not-yet-released, we may then instead look to WP:NFF (paragraoh 3) and decide if the lengthy Times of India article speaks directly and in detail about the film. I feel it does. You feel it does not. Fine to disagree. And a note, blogs are not all automatically unusable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says that the film is "currently in the post production phase". The only references available say it's not released. I understand that some blog posts can be acceptable sources, but I couldn't find any in this case. As for WP:NFF, here is a direct quote: "...should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I don't know of any notability guidelines that consider one news article as sufficient criteria. utcursch | talk 06:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, fine to disagree, but I find that the lengthy article in India's most major newspaper Times of India does speak specifically and in detail about the film's production... enough so to meet the WP:NFF (paragraph 3) guide about the film's production. Perhaps Indian editors with ability to search fr and offer online or hardcopy non-English sources will weigh in. WIth relistings, we'll have the time to wait. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps even if not confidently as the one article may be enough at best to source. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 27 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 as this is convincing enough to close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money-rich, time-poor[edit]

Money-rich, time-poor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unsourced article, might not be notable and could be a violation of WP:NEOLOGISM. Also seems like a wp:coatrack for discussing income and leisure time in general. Prisencolin (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't a concept, like work-life balance. Mduvekot (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I did find this. GAB^Hello! 23:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article is poor, but the phrase is pretty certainly not a neologism, even in Wikipedia terms - it has been around (though often as "cash-rich" or "work-rich" rather than "money-rich") for over 25 years both as a marketing category and as an element of a sociological critique of modern society and consumerism (the earliest use I have found of the first is this from 1988, and of the second is this from 1990), and while treatments tend to be brief, they frequently take the trouble to explain the term and/or state why it is important in their more general discussions (see, for example, this, this, this and this). I am not entirely certain that the topic is best treated in a standalone article (it is part of a classification that would probably be best treated as a whole, and the classification itself is similar enough to several others that it might be better discussed in a wider context), but I can't currently find a suitable target for a redirect or where information from here would naturally slot into an exiting article - and the term does seem to be a valid search term for which we should be supplying at least some limited information on Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is taught in an educational context. See Cambridge textbook. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/ Merge - the article is poor quality, but the concept seems notable. It is one configuration of work-life balance, I would be happy for Money-rich, time-poor to be merged with that article - unless article was improved enough to be standalone. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've always wondered what the term for this specific concept is, and why no article exists. Thankfully it does now. Hawaan12 (talk) 13:54, 23 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kye McGuire[edit]

Kye McGuire (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 artist at the beginning of her career, with one award and a few group exhibitons. There are no solo shows and reviews of her work, which are the traditional indicator of artistic success. Does not come close to meeting WP:ARTIST. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the one award won was minor. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 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 as there are obviously no serious needs for deletion her (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India vs Pakistan in World Cup and World T20 matches[edit]

India vs Pakistan in World Cup and World T20 matches (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 statistics or other details about two teams in WT20 or CWC is never needed at all..If this continues then there will be bundle of articles relating any two teams and making its rivalry an important topic on Wikipedia GreenCricket (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think all the main points are already covered in India–Pakistan cricket rivalry. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or very selectively merge to India–Pakistan cricket rivalry. Just a content fork of that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the India–Pakistan cricket rivalry as its a load of stats Matt294069 is coming 23:42, 23 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Bugs Bunny: Wascally Wabbit[edit]

Looney Tunes Super Stars' Bugs Bunny: Wascally Wabbit (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 DVD compilation. Koala15 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Evaluating similar collections, using similar sources to verify their entry, indicates that there is no special reason to delete this particular one. A better case could be made to delete all of the articles on the "Looney Tunes Super Stars" set, but maybe I am being too harsh on the source quality.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 28 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 as this seems convincing enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HSOPA[edit]

HSOPA (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)

Initialism from unofficial and uncommon name. --> WP:COMMONNAME Nightwalker-87 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is no mention of HSOPA in the article to which this redirects, however a bit of research shows that it stands for High Speed OFDM Packet Access, the original name for the redirect target E-UTRA, and High Speed Packet Access states "After HSPA Evolved, the roadmap leads to E-UTRA (Previously "HSOPA"), the technology specified in 3GPP Releases 8 and 10." This should definitely not be deleted. Meters (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Meters. As one can see from the Talk page archives, this is a redirect coming from an article move from "HSOPA" to "E-UTRA". The redirect should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 23:25, 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 } Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (website)[edit]

Futurism (website) (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 "emerging" website which claims notability, but I was unable to find any independent sources, so it fails WP:WEB. GAB^Hello! 20:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- I agree with the comments below, and now think this that is article should be kept. GAB^Hello! 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it has received sufficient attention from independent sources (see the article's references section) to be considered notable. Another indicator of this notability are the ~2,2 million fans of its facebook page. --Fixuture (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Featured by multiple other notable sources, and quite high readership circulation on regular basis. — Cirt (talk) 14:53, 23 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. Faryayal has been speedy deleted: CSD A1. Sufficient consensus that Ummarrayal should also be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faryayal[edit]

Faryayal (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)

Ummarrayal (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)

Alleged to be a new upcoming series of Mann Mayal but I am not seeing any evidence of existence. Either a hoax or WP:TOOSOON. Also nominating Ummarrayal for the same reason. SpinningSpark 19:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Faryayal has already been speedy deleted three times. Ummarrayal should be deleted as well. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax, and the creators edit history does not inspire any faith. JDDJS (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: Faryayal has already been CSD'ed. But Ummarrayal still exists so this AfD should focus on that one from this point forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ummarrayal also as this is also currently questionable for a better notable article yet, delete for now and restart later if better is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]