< 26 March	28 March >

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) 00:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Joshua Danao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertisement/Vanity page. Questionable notability. Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - I cannot find any reliable sources to corroborate any of the information in the article, thus fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NBIO. On an unrelated note, I have placed ((uw-coi-username)) on Official.dhta's talk page due to the obvious COI in editing the article on the Dragon Heart Taekwondo Academy's founder. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator. This is a classic reason that if an AfD is in progress speedies should not apply which happened the last time. Heavily promotional article with unsupported notability. The article was speedy deleted a couple of times but managed to hang on the third. Claims are either unsupported, minor and exaggerated. Do not think this meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG - in reality this is a teacher of taekwondo at about 4-5 locations.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on nominator rationale. I've cleaned up some of the promotional content (which involved removing the majority of the page entirely... ) and I don't see any reason why that issue can't be cleaned up, but the fact still remains that it does not meet notability guidelines as far as I can tell from online sources. Appable (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated one of the earlier versions for a speedy and this current version has no more merit. Highly promotional and underwhelmed with verifiable sources. Very clearly not notable and fails WP:GNG. I did wonder whether it might actually be a hoax but I will accept it may just be self aggrandisement. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 06:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability and there's nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:14, 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 ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John G. (Jack) Samson[edit]

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

Biography of a sport fisherman and author with no substantive or properly sourced indication of notability for either endeavour; as written, this is just a blurb which asserts his existence, and doesn't adequately demonstrate why his existence would be of concern to an encyclopedia. In addition, an anonymous IP has raised concerns that the closest thing to a "source" here, the authority control template, is inaccurately conflating the fly fisherman with an unrelated military historian of the same name. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be properly sourced, but nothing claimed or sourced here makes this a keepable article in its existing state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found a few links but nothing at all enough to suggest a keepable and improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Field & Stream. Neutral. The subject was an editor for the magazine from 1970–1972 and editor-in chief from 1972–1985.^[1] Some coverage is out there, but there may not be enough to retain the article. An extensive obituary was published by the Associated Press^[1]. There's an extensive piece about his life published by the Outdoor Writers Association of America^[2], some content in Fly Life magazine^[3], a paragraph in The New York Times^[4] and a short paragraph in Tuscon Citizen^[5]. The subject is presently not mentioned at the merge target article, so merging is functional to WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Former Field and Stream Editor Dies at Age 84 in his Santa Fe Home". Associated Press. March 20, 2007. Retrieved 26 March 2016.
^ "Jack Samson: An OWAA Living Legend". Outdoor Writers Association of America.
^ "Feature: Fly Fishing for Sailfish Made Easy". Fly Life Magazine.
^ "New Trout Books Worthy of Perusal". The New York Times. 20 May 1984.
^ "Quimby Column". Tuscon Citizen. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Delete The references in the article provide significant coverage but are only obituaries; the additional ones listed above provide passing mentions; not enough for an article. I am always in favor of a redirect or merge when appropriate, but I don't think it works in this case. When I went to look at the proposed target article, I found no place to merge information to; none of the magazine's other editors are mentioned and it would be strange to add information about just one of them. So in this case I favor "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above. Normally, I'd be all over any suggestion for a redirect if a reasonable target could be found, but you're right, it would be out of place given the current Field & Stream article. I would be nice to include a section in that article listing all the editors-in-chief over the history of the magazine, but a little half-hearted searching didn't come up with an obvious source for that. I suppose one could just read through the magazine archives and look at every masthead, but I'm not prepared to do that. So, doing with delete -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MelanieN and RoySmith: I changed my !vote above to "neutral". Information about Field & Stream editors is readily available in Google Books searches (e.g. [1]), but I don't feel like working on the article to add all of this content at this time. Maybe someone else will someday, or maybe not... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage about him from independent, reliable sources. Obits are fine, but everybody gets one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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) 00:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Milanović[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable Serbian actor. Article apparently created by subject (see [2]). Quis separabit? 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A detailed google-fu came up completely empty as to sources. IMDB is about the only source about the subject (and its contents, even if 100% true, don't show any notability). No such user (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently having as any signs of better applicable notability, simply not convincingly acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 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 redirect to 2016 BRDC British Formula 3 Championship. WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 British Formula Three Championship season[edit]

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

This article had already been created, as seen here. It's also more updated and contains more references to the information posted. Sjælefred Herm (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 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) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Clint Dempsey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Sergio Agüero

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Clint Dempsey (2nd nomination)

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

Not notable list of goals. This list is very similar to the recently deleted List of international goals scored by Javier Hernández. – CR7 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CR7 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CR7 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per previous precedent, these lists are not notable unless the footballer is now, or at some point was, the top scorer for their country. Dempsey will need to score 9 more international goals to draw even with Landon Donovan, at which point this list can be recreated. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current consensus is that the lists are only notable if the player is or at some point has been, their countries all-time leading scorer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 March 2016‎
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above note about not being country's leading scorer. Just listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 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) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Morgan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of deleted page. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG as before. Only material change is that subject received award nominations in 2014, which is enough to defeat G4, but clearly is not enough to pass PORNBIO. Promotional text, no independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 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, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for All-Girl Performer from AVN, nominated for XBIZ Award, role in the latest film by Zalman King, Penthouse Pet of the Month and Twistys Treat Of The Month - enough to leave.--Кориоланыч (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG guidelines. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, there does not appear to be enough notability for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK--Кориоланыч (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable.VanEman (talk) 17:48, 3 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 redirect to Joan Acocella. There is a clear majority for deltion, but also some who have sincerely argued for keeping, so I have had to interpret the debate in the context of what is normal precedent and policy for Wikipedia biographies. DGG in the nomination correctly points out that the books are already in the main biography. The remainder of the entries list articles that Ms. Acocella wrote for The New Yorker. Looking over at what is established practice for other well-known authors, books are usually listed but individual magazine articles are not. As such, the people arguing for deletion are not only in a clear majority, but they are also in accordance with standard practice.

With that said, some Wikipedia biographies do list out a selection of published articles which in my mind introduces some measure of doubt as to whether deletion is the correct outcome. Because of this, I will close this discussion with a "redirect" to the main biography rather than an outright deletion. I will not be merging anything, but this resolution leaves the history in tact in case any of the magazine articles are worth merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Acocella bibliography[edit]

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

Making a list of individual dance reviews and essays is not appropriate, and the books are already in the main article. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:NOTWEBHOST etc Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - separate bibliographies are suitable for authors with more than ten publications - see guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies Sunwin1960 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunwin1960: I understand the question to be one of notability: if the bibliography is not found in WP:RS, then we shouldn't have a bibliography article regardless of the notability of the subject. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this bibliography, I should perhaps explain my attitude to author bibliographies. If an author (of whatever ilk) is deemed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then I think we should include a list of those items which are responsible for their notability, i.e. their writings. I don't create articles for the authors themselves, leaving that to users who know the subject matter better than me, but if I read something by an author for which a page exists I update the bibliography to include the item I've just read. If the bibliography grows enough to become significant in its own right as a research guide, I tend to move it into its own page. This is partly to allow the main article to remain uncluttered, but also to allow the bibliography to be further developed. I tend not to have the time to completely overhaul a bibliography, so I might tidy up poorly formatted entries, introduce citation templates etc. and then invite other editors to continue the work by using the "this list is incomplete" template. Sunwin1960 (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with the idea that a notable author automatically has a notable bibliography. I'm also not comfortable with the issues this approach would raise wrt WP:OR. If you're a bibliographer you know how far you can trust google, gscholar, ZBL, MR, etc. As editors, we aren't presumed to have that knowledge and need to rely on WP:RS instead. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a CV. We don't include every publication for every academic we have an article for. The guidelines for what to include aren't as clear as they could be, but especially if we're talking about spinning off to a separate article in order to include everything, there really needs to be a degree of importance for the author or publications that would allow a bibliography to satisfy our notability criteria on its own. For example, there are reliable secondary sources about the collective oeuvre of, say, Kurt Vonnegut or Emily Dickinson, and there are published bibliographies on major subjects in scholarly works. That's the sort of thing we would need for notability, and it just doesn't exist for most subjects (even notable subjects). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rhododendrites has it heads on. We have bibliographies of Einstein and Darwin, but not for more mundane academics. --Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—@Rhododendrites: and @Randykitty: have it exactly right: we don't have articles for "mundane academics" or where there is an absence of "reliable secondary sources about the collective oeuvre". Where those reliable sources exist, however, notability for the bibliography (apart from the notability of the subject) can be established. This bibliography meets that test. Acocella's work is indexed comprehensively in the standard dance bibliographies edited by G. K. Hall: Index to Dance Periodicals and Bibliographic guide to dance. I regret that I have access to only a subset of these volumes, but those I was able to consult more than establish notability for the bibliography. I have added these citations to the article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: As it doesn't seem like there's a Google Books preview, Amazon preview, or that I otherwise have access to these sources, can I ask for clarification? When you say that her work is indexed there, you don't mean a few works, right? They have a section about Acocella with a scope along the lines of what's included here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Those bibliographies have complete coverage of a handful of scholarly journals on dance and selective coverage for a few additional "mainstream" publications with a strong track record for dance criticism and review (in particular, the New Yorker). If you look up someone's name you'll see what appears to be a complete listing of their works published for the past year in these selected venues, as well as selected coverage of their book publications, mentions in collections of essays, etc. To directly answer the question you asked: the sum of entries across the relevant volumes would be more comprehensive than what is currently in the article wrt book publications and top-tier journals.

As bibliographies go, this is not a gold-standard collected-works edition. Nor is it a scholarly annotated bibliography (although the entries usually have a sentence or two of context). However, unlike Mathematical_Reviews and Zentralblatt MATH, the bibliography is selective: not every academic's criticism or every critic's review gets listed; you have to be publishing in the top-tier venues.

Honest, well-intentioned people can disagree here. I think there's a consensus that notability of a subject does not guarantee notability of their bibliography, and perhaps less of a consensus (count me in) that we should be relying on bibliographies published in WP:RS to both establish notability and to populate the resulting article. I think selective bibliographies such as those I dug up earlier today suffice; other editor may want a higher bar. That's fine. As best I can tell, we haven't reached a critical mass of bibliography articles for a sitewide consensus to have been reached.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "complete coverage" sounds to me that if we take this as standard, then we would need to have bibliographies for everybody who has ever published on this subject. This seems similar to works like the Science Citation Index: enter somebody's name and you'll get a complete list of their works. But that is not the same as serious discussion of somebody's oevre, which is what I'd like to see before putting someone's list of publications in an "article" here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even Science Citation Index does not include book reviews, nor do most bibliographies in science. Sometimes in the humanities they are included in indexes, because they can sometimes but not usually be length and important, but they are normally found only in separate indexes. Reviews of performances also, which can vary in length from trivial to very substantial, are usually found in special indexes. WorldCat includes them, as it does some reference book chapters, but only for the Project Muse and JSTOR journals they cover. An encyclopedia similarly has to draw the line somewhere.

And we do include them--we include them in articles on the works. For example, in our bibliography of her books, he should include footnotes to all identifiable reviews of them--I try to include that. It would not be inappropriate in an article on a famous dance work, to include notes of all performances. Specialized bibliographies do cover these things. But what they do not cover is a a complete listing of them by whoever wrote the review. Our policy is similar, and is based on NOT INDISCRIMINATE. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the description of this work ("indexed comprehensively in the standard dance bibliographies") I did not get the impression that these were book reviews, but more a simple listing like you see in WoS or GScholar (and here). --Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: It's definitely not extensive reviews, but neither is it GScholar. A human has gone through and given a one- or two-line summary about the work along with the bibliographical material. @DGG: I agree that "an encyclopedia has to draw the line somewhere," and I think that line should be where people who are paid to be subject matter experts have drawn the line. The folks printing the bibliographies I cited have chosen what they think are the best journals in this field, and those journal are publishing substantial criticism, history and reviews. An author having their work listed in such a bibliography, to my mind, speaks to the notability of both the author and the notability of their body of work. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing particularly convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "If there are fewer than 10 works attributable to the author, they should be included in a bibliography or list of works section within the main article." (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies) does not necessarily mean that if an author has over 10 works than they should have an article, notability guidelines still apply ie. WP:LISTN - "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", at present the article does not show this. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN for the reason given above, as no improvement to the article ie. sources showing notablity has been made. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN, and as per numerous delete rationale's above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joan Acocella. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hellloooo hard working admin types, this afd commenced on 27 March, it is now 12 April, should this be closed or a relist notice posted?, just wondering... Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 12 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 Keep, per WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Lahore suicide bombing[edit]

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

The article 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast was on Wikipedia when this article was created. Musa Talk 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly disruptive behavior by nominator, see page histories. One can be merged into the other. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 18:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Expand article seems highly notable and needs expansion, not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second look perhaps 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast should be merged with this article or vise versa Inter&anthro (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is now currently the only non-redirect page being used for it. If necessary it can be renamed or merged. It is now utterly pointless and indeed un-encyclopaedic to discuss this here. I urge @Musa Raza: to withdraw this proposal and encourage a discussion to be held in the talk pages. The situation is an unfortunate mess, lets not make it worse. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep death toll of 65, previous history of suicide bombings and terror attacks (with lower death tolls) in Lahore being notable, including:
Lahore church bombings
2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team
October 2009 Lahore attacks
December 2009 Lahore attacks
2009 Lahore bombing

These are all similar incidents in the same geographic location, with similar death tolls. These types of terror attacks are notable as having an impact on the Pakistani political situation. -- Callinus (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro, Mr rnddude, and Callinus: This article is written on the topic that already exist as 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast. Both are same and 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast was created before this one. This article should be deleted or moved to 2016 Allama Iqbal Town blast. UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR DELETION.--Musa Talk 18:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One was redirecting to the other, you undid so. This is not place to discuss. Redirect/Merge sufficient. Kindly withdraw report. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Musa Raza: if you want to use a merge tag then do so. The WP:AFD article clearly says "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers" - This is not what the AfD process is for. -- Callinus (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Musa Raza, Spirit Ethanol, Inter&anthro, and Callinus: Time of creation is irrelevant, I understand the reason from deletion but its not valid. The fact of the matter is that because of the nature of the situation we need to develop a consensus before deleting anything. Two other articles created before yours have also been forcibly merged into the current one. This was against consensus and in fact without consultation. I would recommend that we all stop doing anything. Go to the talk page, talk, achieve consensus then start moving. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Musa Raza: if you want to use a merge tag then do so. The WP:AFD article clearly says "For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers" - This is not what the AfD process is for. -- Callinus (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

−

@Callinus and Mr rnddude: I did this but my edit was reverted every time. Spirit Ethanol says I'm edit warring. But I didn't I warned the user. The user who reverted my edit was edit warring. I requested for speedy deletion which states the an article on other topic already exist.--Musa Talk 18:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, also stop separating sections in a deletion thread please it causes confusion, the issue is that we should not be attempting to delete any page until consensus is achieved. Merging pages doesn't delete them. If consensus decides on one page then we can easily revert the change and keep whichever on is decided upon. I am at 1 revert, you and spirit ethanol are at 3? if I am not mistaken. Neither of you should do any reverts, nor should anyone else before we achieve consensus. Please discuss these changes in the talk page. @Musa Raza, Spirit Ethanol, Inter&anthro, and Callinus: Mr rnddude (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Kristijh (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{u|Kristijh)) did edit warring. Please see his talk page I warned him.--Musa Talk 18:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable event, if you want to merge it, this is not the place to discuss it 188.194.20.241 (talk) 18:47, 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 merge to Magic Tree House. czar 16:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Magic Tree House[edit]

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

Because of the small number of characters I don't believe this deserves it's own article. Music1201 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. This article should be a separate subcategory inside of the Magic Tree House article, and does not merit its own separate page. Sheepythemouse
Merge and redirect: Same reason as Sheepythemouse; the characters should be noted in the original article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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. Bishonen | talk 19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liis Viira[edit]

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

I do not know the notability guidelines of the German and Estonian Wikipedias, but at first glance the German and Estonian versions of this article aren't much better. No evidence of significant coverage. SST flyer 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, if you know nothing about a certain subject, it should be deleted? Nothing says trigger-happy better than placing a deletion note mere 22 minutes after a stub is created, without any thought about improving the article or even giving it time to be improved. And then some people wonder why newcomers won't stay in Wikipedia. Well, I've added some content, and there's about two dozens of sources I could add, but I'm not sure if it is of any help. If the main criteria is "Never heard of it, hence delete", then by definition, nothing coming from small countries could ever be notable. Concerning a composer, one might start talking about prizes, articles and interviews in national media, presenting country in international competitions, etc, but most likely you've never heard about those prizes, media outlets or competitions either, so the situation would become tautological. Ignorance is its own proof. (And heavens forbid you'd ever try Google.) --Idaeurooplane (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liis Viira's work was elected to represent Estonian music on International Rostrum of Composers. This event can be called the World Cup of new classical music. It is quite strange anyway how cultural themes are treated in Wikipedia - every soccer player seems to be more important than a professional musician and composer. Pseudacorus (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unless better Estonian coverage can be found, simply none of this suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several press articles, concert reviews, etc., which testify to the notability of this musician. As so often happens, articles in languages such as Estonian are overlooked.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is one of the few harpists in Estonia, this puts her into notability for her area under WP:MUSIC, criteria for musicians and ensembles #7. Also, since she's on the national public radio equivalent for Estonia, I think that's a RS that shows her GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appear to be plenty of references in Estonian. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit on a weak level, upon a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 4 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 speedy delete. The immediate criterion is G7: Official.dhta (talk · contribs) is the only editor who made substantial contributions to the page, and he requested speedy deletion. I also think that promotion is a concern here: even if the article text is not blatantly promotional, the account appears to be acting only to promote Danao. If the article is immediately recreated in basically the same form, I think a delete (CSD G11 or A7) and salt would then be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Joshua Danao[edit]

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

Heavily promotional article with unsupported notability. The article was speedy deleted a couple of times but managed to hang on the third. Claims are either unsupported, minor and exaggerated. Do not think this meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG - in reality this is a teacher of taekwondo at about 4-5 locations. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:28, 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. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East One[edit]

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

This proposed building in Glasgow has never been built and in fact as far as can be told by searches never proceeded beyond a proposal. Wikipedia doesn't need to contain articles of every proposed concept for every tall building (i.e. notability).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaweed (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article shows height reduction, and no evidence of construction following 10 years of proposal. Reference links to a different building (in another country) so it appears kicked off the building database as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was not added to that database. The reference should be http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=3340 (Skyscrapernews.com, not skyscraperpage). Peter James (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 22:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Peter James (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for a currently better article with current details and there's also simply nothing else for better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 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. Sandstein 21:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of courthouse buildings in the United States: A[edit]

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

This seems like a list without much purpose. Organizing U.S. courthouses alphabetically in large lists doesn't seem like the best way to organize or manage them, and without separating between types of courthouses, the scope seems rather extensive and poorly defined. (Compare with, for instance, a list of county courthouses in a particular state, which has a defined scope and a geographical limit to keep it from becoming too big a list to manage.) Besides, this list is disorganized to the point of seeming abandoned; it's an alphabetical list without corresponding lists for other letters, the table is broken in half, and the list isn't organized in any clear fashion (and even includes a number of articles that don't start with A.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit history and Talk page discussions show the article was under development by me as "List of courthouse buildings in the United States". It was moved twice by an administrator to the improper name. In my opinion then and now the actions constituted abuse of admin privileges in a harassing, bullying manner. The editor could have correctly noted the article was incomplete and called for development or other action. By ignoring the actual content and moving it to an unreasonable name using admin tools the editor was instead sabotaging the article and blocking development. It seemed likely they would obstruct further. I chose to cease editing there for at least a while. I will explain a bit more later after some offline or related online discussion concludes, and I request this AFD be considered on hold or withdrawn now. Thanks. do ncr am 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latest move happened two years ago, you hadn't touched the page for two years before the first move, and it wouldn't change the problems with the scope. I'm not putting this on hold. (Besides, the list is tagged by WikiProject National Register of Historic Places; aren't you topic-banned from articles related to the NRHP anyway?) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That topic ban is what other discussion elsewhere would relate to. I will email you separately and you can choose to discuss this offline or not. Thanks. --do ncr am 19:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: - Why don't you just move it your user-space for now? - ^theWOLFchild 18:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it's simply not a useful navigational device. No objection to userfication upon request, whether in lieu of deletion or as a rationale for post-AFD undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that this list is fairly useless, that it has formatting problems, that its scope is too broad, etc.; but I think lists on Wikipedia are of dubious value in general. They tend to accumulate unsourced information, including large proportions of trivia. They generally list things that have their own articles, which can easily be found through a search. But is anything wrong with this list that's not wrong with a thousand other lists on Wikipedia? Does its existence prevent the creation of anything more useful? Does it confuse or mislead anybody? If we're going to have a list of football stadiums in Nagorno-Karabakh, why not a list of courthouse buildings in the United States? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it has such a huge scope, as McGhiever notes. A list of county courthouses in a single state (that's a better analogue to the N-K football stadiums), or a list of all federal courthouses, or a list of all county courthouses nationwide with a certain characteristic (e.g. the oldest one in each state) is workable, but having a single list for all courthouse nationwide is unhelpful, and splitting up such a list by alphabetical order is equally unhelpful in all ways except sheer page size. I say this as someone with an almost-completed list of county courthouses in Illinois on my hard drive. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are 3,114 counties (including county equivalents) in the U.S.; nearly all of them will have a county courthouse, plus however many federal courthouses, former courthouses, etc. That's just too huge to be a list useful to anybody. I could see maybe doing lists by state, but a huge list of all potential courthouses divided alphabetically (essentially randomizing the content geographically) serves no purpose except to warm those editors who feel in their heart of hearts that such a thing ought to exist. It would be a herculean effort better spent on the individual articles. -McGhiever (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a list that doesn't seem like it'll be that useful. APerson (talk!) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list-article has been revised by me in these edits. I started the article years ago with intent for it to be the list of United States examples within a world-wide List of courthouses (currently a redlink, but please see Draft:List of courthouses), to be ordered by state then city (it is now so ordered). It would be unusual nowadays for a large article to be started in mainspace this way, but I started with a small, arbitrary batch of courthouses (each with their city and state) which were not expected to be the most important examples, but all of which I expected were all individually notable because they are listed on a historic register. The starting material was selected to be just county courthouses because those would be complementary to the material covered in List of United States federal courthouses which another editor mostly developed. The batch to start with was 67 county courthouses whose names happened to start with numbers or with the letter A; it would be open to later addition of more county ones and city and town courthouses. I was organizing the material into tabular form, and adding photos, and so on, developing it towards the form of many other large list-articles of U.S. places that I and others have created, such as List of Catholic churches in the United States, List of bridges in the United States, List of casinos in the United States. (~~Aside: Hey there should be a Category:Lists of things in the United States (redlink, temporarily).~~ [What I was grasping for already exists: Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United States.) As alluded to above, I left the material in orderly but incomplete form in 2010, with a table of 32 sorted by state then city, including photos already for 13 of them, for two years apparently, then I returned to the article in 2012 when my watchlist showed several changes starting with this one. As I recall I left the article again to avoid contention, until I came across it recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today or Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), which I browse frequently. (My AFD editing is usually to Keep articles and often seek to save material and avoid affront to contributors by use of existing or new list-articles, with redirection of marginal article topics to appropriate list-items.) If the intent for this list-article is clear, it was and remains a valid topic, IMO.

Note: Some time later I was banned from editing in a topic area applying here. I have long been eligible to appeal for the ban to be removed but have not yet appealed. After I responded in this AFD and created Draft:List of courthouses, urgent stuff in real life has kept me away for several days. My recent edits are expedient to clarify the situation for AFD decision purposes. I put the article into what I believe is reasonable format essentially by rearranging material and inserting state sections, only. I believe this removes concerns about what was intended for the article (it is to be organized sensibly, its scope is all notable courthouses in the U.S., which if too large will be split out probably by state, etc.). I have removed the U.S. historic sites Wikiproject header from the Talk page, which I hope no one will object to, and which I think is justified as no one from the Wikiproject has sought to develop the list and as the scope of the list is broader. I intend not to develop the article further unless I obtain explicit clearance. And I will myself give notice of my edits at the appropriate arbitration-related page for their review next (please give me a chance to figure out how, and to raise the issue there, next for me in my limited "wikipedia-time"). --do ncr am 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I grant that Doncram's recent edits mitigate my structural concerns, at least. However the scope remains enormous, only a tiny fraction of the content is yet here, it has sat virtually untouched for years, and the only editor arguing to keep this list has "limited wikipedia-time" and is skirting rather close to an existing topic ban. This list just doesn't seem developable. And note that Draft:List of courthouses was declined recently. -McGhiever (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on all points besides the "developability" of this list. The draft "List of courthouses", created during this AFD, was declined for now with link to this AFD, and should of course be accepted into mainspace together with the "keeping" of this list-article. If anyone is opposed to having lists of courthouses, then please move it into mainspace to avoid creation of separate lists of courthouses in Australia, Albania, Canada, Malta, etc. --do ncr am 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to lists of courthouses, I'm opposed to kittens. I just don't want to see this list get roughly framed out by you and then left 97% undone for other editors to deal with. If this list is kept, will you be able to see it through to a critical mass? I know that's not grounds for deletion; I'm just asking because no one else seems invested in the heavy lifting necessary. -McGhiever (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it should be moved to a reasonable name, probably List of courthouses in the United States (I would move it now but that requires admin tools). Courthouse is a valid topic; a list of notable examples would be too large to include in that article. There is Category:Courthouses and Category:Courthouses in the United States. See wp:CLN for how lists and categories and navigation templates are complementary. Note a list allows photos and provides a good alternative for readers to scan what's available in a topic area,, and a list allows for sourcing and for redlinks identifying needed articles. As for many other kinds of items listed in Wikipedia, the world-wide list is naturally split into sub-lists by country when the larger list becomes too big, and the larger states' sections within the U.S. list will naturally be split out when they grow very large, also. "Too huge a list" is not a problem. Note we have List of bridges, List of Italians, List of American film actresses, List of amendments to the United States Constitution, etc., which index huge amounts of material split out into sub-pages. For places, as here, the most natural organization is by nation, state, city. --do ncr am 01:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list of lists of things in the United States! Ladies and Gentlemen, this has gone too far. I started out thinking that this compiling of lists, while rather pointless, was just harmless fun, but now I see our peril. I must take a stand against it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peril? :) But I don't see what wp:DEL-REASON applies. And hey, no one called for a List of lists of any type. I remarked about a category of lists, and that already exists: Category:Lists of buildings and structures in the United States, which includes the lists of churches, bridges, train stations, government buildings, agricultural buildings, shopping malls, equestrian statues, zoos, pyramid mausoleums, etc. -- all of which are fine IMHO. I would agree with you in objecting to a "List of lists of buildings and structures" because the group of lists would pretty much be a Wikipedia creation. But notable courthouses exist, and they could be listed within the Courthouse article, and courthouses can be spoken of as a group, e.g. "the architecture of courthouses", and a list of them seems to comply with wp:LISTN. :) --do ncr am 03:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that category link. It led me to discover that there are already lists of county courthouses in the United States for a couple states. If more of those were developed, and federal facilities are already on the list of United States federal courthouses, what would be left for a general List of courthouse buildings in the United States that would pass WP:CSC? -McGhiever (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks McGhiever for finding those. This list allows for short lists of county courthouses to be included directly, perhaps heading off creation of many separate list-articles. By this edit I included links to the six existing "List of county courthouses in STATE" articles. This leaves 25 tables of county and other non-Federal courthouses already started in the AFD-subject list-article. About 20 state sections so far just have links to their Federal courthouses, but even that clarifies (correctly now) that there does not seem to be a separate list of county courthouses for those states yet. This structure organizes the information well for readers and to allow for addition of all types.

Commentators in this AFD who are from outside the U.S., especially, will be unaware of how many historic city courthouses and village courthouses and state-level courthouses exist and are clearly notable, and will be included. --do ncr am 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: What is a WP category but a list of articles? A category of lists is a list of lists. Where things naturally fall into a sequence (e.g., James Bond movies, novels by Agatha Christie, U.S. Secretaries of State); where readers are likely to want several examples, without having to pick through full articles to get at them (Statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress during FDR's third term); or where individual examples aren't easy to search for, most likely because they're notable only as members of the category being listed (Characters of Dark Shadows (TV Series)); then I can see usefulness in compiling lists. I don't think any of these criteria applies to courthouses of the United States. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcrutch:, if you oppose the creation of dozens more lists of courthouses, then you should vote "Keep" here. If you oppose having hundreds of separate articles for marginally-notable courthouses, then you should vote "Keep" here. --do ncr am 20:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to keep this list but it rises some questions. One: For me it does not make sense to sort the alphabetic list by states in an underlying level as it leads to many empty sections. Two: it is unclear how former and actual courthouses are handled. Three: There are courthouses which are used as feedderal and/or other official buildings as well. I think this list should be reorganised to a list trully sorted alphabetically by county, without having sub sections by state. However: I think a list by state would be more useful at all. --Matthiasb (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Questions partially addressed by these edits just now which hide (by commenting out) any so-far-empty tables of state and local courthouses, and clarifies in the lede. About courts in Federal buildings and otherwise sharing a building, I think that if the building is known/notable as a courthouse it should be included. This and other list-management issues are suitable for discussion at the Talk page of the list-article, of course. --do ncr am 19:14, 4 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 03:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confidant[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. No evidence this is an encyclopedic topic. SST flyer 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources that discuss the concept of the "confidant" as a character in literature. See, for example, this article, this book, and this book. Just was we have articles for Protagonist, Antihero, etc., we should keep this article and develop it with available sources. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is an article about a concept in literary studies and not a dictionary definition. I can find plenty of scholarly coverage. @SSTflyer: I've replaced the WP:Example cruft in the article with a brief, referenced section on the concept's history. Does this solve your immediate concern with the article? —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Nizolan has greatly improved an article that at the time of nomination seemed to be original research. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:27, 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 no consensus. Most seem to agree that we should cover this topic somehow, but there's no agreement about whether it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus. Sandstein 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koren Specific Technique[edit]

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

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics. This particular chiropractic technique has not received the outside notice we would require for a notable alternative medicine modality. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are more unreliable sources in the article than there are reliable sources. There are only 4 reliable sources on the topic. The specific information about Tedd Koren is not about the Koren Specific Technique. This is clearly a violation of WP:COATRACK. Based on coverage from reliable sources the article is not notable. User:Valoem stated There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four reliable sources which gives this subject significant coverage. I added some primary sources for NPOV, however they can be removed. I wrote this article due to my science background, as per WP:FRINGE this is quackery, but notable quackery. We coverage quackery so the public can be informed. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You restored the unreliable sources and coatrack after they were deleted. Primary sources and the coatrack are still in the article. Your not sure if this GNG, but you think it should be a speedy keep? QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's called a neutral message buddy. If I said I was sure this is notable on his talk page that would be bias, but I can saying it clearly here that my opinion is that is notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I also see no reliable sources giving the source significant coverage. Here's a breakdown of the sources:
  1. Pagosa Daily Post: not WP:FRIND compliant.
  2. Sunrise Health Institute: not WP:FRIND compliant.
  3. McCoy Press: not WP:FRIND compliant.
  4. Passing mention in a National Health Service document (on a list -- does not speak to notability whatsoever).
  5. "Inspire Chiropractic": not WP:FRIND compliant.
  6. Chirobase article is about the chiropractor Ted Koren and not about the technique itself.
- jps (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I can removed those sources if consensus demands, I was trying for NPOV, we have the same goals to protect the public from quackery, DGG, once eloquent stated that in order to remain NPOV we should first write what the fringe proponent views and then the scientific views. Beside NHS Leeds West CCG there are other publications which states this is quackery, though the phrase they use is investigation with no statistically significant effect on health. Because most science journal (including those in the chiropractic community) have been mostly negative, I though it would be fair to states the proponents views, but that can always be corrected. It looks like this is an article for clean up and I think we have the same goals to expose quackery for what it is. Just to note User:teddkoren has been vandalizing the page changing the term quackery to "health care protocol", jps I think we have the same goals here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only sources used in the article. I've listed them all except for the one by Ted Koren himself. Significant coverage means more than just appearing on a list, incidentally. jps (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[3] this is very clearly significant, it also appears to support the method. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A chiropractic source is not reliable for this article at all. Nor does it qualify as WP:FRIND for WP:NFRINGE purposes. jps (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is, it it clearly independent. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See http://chiropracticpediatrics.sharepoint.com/Pages/2011_1023_asthma.aspx It appears to be a case study not a review. The editorial board is made of largely chiropractors. Do you still think they are independent? QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes chiropractic sources are considered independent as long as it is not a proponent of KST. Valoem^talk ^contrib 20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unequivocally incorrect. Chiropractic sources are not independent sources for establishing the notability of this chiropractic method any more than, say, a creationist source would be considered an independent source for establishing the notability of a particular creationist argument. jps (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd, jps, but I'm pretty sure that nobody at WT:Notability would agree with you on that "unequivocally incorrect" claim.

I'm more interested in where you get the idea that a local news magazine isn't an WP:Independent source. I understand why you think it's a lousy source, but I want to know why you think it's not independent. As defined in that page, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." What vested interest do you accuse them of holding? Are they maybe trying to make money by promoting it? (That's the most common vested interest.) I'd cheerfully kill the source for other reasons (e.g., a lack of WP:SIGCOV), but you've made an accusation that any journalist would find quite insulting. I think you should explain what you meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The Pagosa Daily post sources is just slow news day fodder. We are explicitly directed not to consider that as something conferring notability. jps (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP is an encyclopedia that includes notable nonsense, and this is notable enough. We should not attempt to destroy articles on such topics. And it is necessary to first describe something before presenting the criticism, and for idiosyncratic topics like this the contriver of the method can be a suitable source for what he claims to have done. In fact, this one is so weird that perhaps a fuller explanation is needed. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

btw, the article in Mccoy press journal cited above does not "appear to support the method". It's a single case study, with the only evaluation of the result given as "the patient’s mother reported improvement in the boy’s condition." Even for chiropractic this is sub-standard. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I missed that, in that case only primary sources support the topic. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about the other unreliable sources you restored along with the coatrack? QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is argument for clean up which can be decided after the AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Lacks notability and coverage in independent sources. PermStrump(talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even following the discussion, his nomination is based on the uses of primary sources and already stated reliable independent secondary sources exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a deletion in general, if you think this should be limited to nom's reasons please see WP:SNOW. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page! Agree which is why Permstrump's argument is invalid as at least 4 uncontroversial independent sources have been established. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. Not a single independent source has been established except for a passing mention in an NHS document. jps (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with jps. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and have support from other editors so far. We must cover fringe fairly. Suppose we shall just let the discussion takes its course to see whether others agree. The article need expansion not delete. Our goal is to educate people on notable topics fringe or not. I hope all my opponents understand this article is written from a neutral tone and obviously is not here to promote a non-notable technique. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are seeing ideology where there is really just politic. The issue is that fringe theories in order to be notable must be commented upon by sources other than those which are fringe adherents themselves. This is because if a fringe theory is so obscure that the WP:MAINSTREAM has not bothered to comment on it, there is no way to write a netural article because sources that would treat the subject in the most reliable way simply don't exist and we are not empowered to offer our own means to explain what the mainstream evaluation is likely to be. It has everything to do with finding independent sources which, in this case, means sources which are not chiropractors. jps (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are sources other than those which are fringe adherents. I sent Cunard a message to see if additional sources exist as he is excellent at source finding. Also I don't believe non-KST chiropractic sources are considered primary. That's the same thing as saying all biology related sources are primary for sources for topics involving biology. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is precisely one other editor (besides you) who agrees. This doesn't matter; we need consensus; but it seems jps raises some good points. My compromise is to userfy (!vote) until more reliable sources can be found. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Without a logically explanation Valoem removed the tags without fixing the problems. Valoem, you previously said "only primary sources support the topic."[4] The sentence "The technique has been regarded as quackery due to lack of scientific evidence,[6][not in citation given] though Koren disputes this claim.[7][improper synthesis?] failed verification. The article is a mess. QuackGuru (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD can at times be a highly unbalanced process. People often disagree with scope of coverage when creating an encyclopedia which is why we undergo this process. In regards to AfD discussions editors new to subject should be allowed to judge the merits of the sources without bias. Tagging an article may cause an inherent bias to be formed that each source in question has already been disregarded. If our goal is to evaluate a subject neutrally tags should be removed so editors can judge the sources for themselves. The AfD itself is a trial each source is therefore already in question, tagging creates additional bias. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my edit summary. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in the article. What about the original research? QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the sources are unreliable which is reason for the AfD process is it not? When was the decision made those are all poor sources? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the article and addressed the synth and citation issues. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, there's the notability in serious doubt and the sources are still seriously doubtful. I think you should just let it go. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and has not been supported by scientific evidence of having positive health effects.[7]"? No. Deleting the tags did not address the citation issues. There are still problems.

The first sentence says "Koren Specific Technique (KST) is a chiropractic treatment technique developed by Tedd Koren in 2005.[1][2][not in citation given][3][not in citation given]" At least two sources failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to believe you seriously cannot find an issue with these sources Valoem. Can we just put this article out of its misery. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was a significant, ongoing, two-year controversy inside the chiropractic profession regarding Koren and KST -- he taught seminars to teach the KST technique to non-chiropratics, was told not to do so by a host of professional associations, and was sanctioned by a global chiropractic association as a result. [5][6][7][8] Interestingly, Koren responded that it is not a chiropractic technique, but an "analytic" one, hence it was ok.[9]. The Koren website has what looks like a couple hundred 'providers' of the technique.[10] Google turns up some U.S. insurers stating that they do not cover it.[11][12] Similar story with the NHS citation.[13]. If it were totally unheard of, the insurers wouldn't be listing it. I could see a lede that says that KST is an experimental treatment technique that has been the subject of controversy in the chiropractic profession and does not has not been accepted as effective by insurers that cover other chiropractic techniques. I'm not sure that this rises to the level of notability, however. In the interim, I will make a couple changes to get the article to match the sources. Chris vLS (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per DGG. We document plenty of notable nonsense here, and this is in that class of voodoo hand waving garbage. There should be improvement using some of the sources mentioned, especially those mentioned by Chris vLS (who may wish to actually !vote). As a fringe subject, notability can be established using some fringe sources per WP:Parity, and insurance company's evaluation is not fringe. It's notable as a method rejected by them and mainstream health care. I have written quite a bit on how to deal with fringe subjects. You may find it interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Insurance companies websites are not secondary sources and therefore not RS. You have not shown there is notable documentation. Most sources mentioned by User:Chrisvls are not reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - QG, that's utter BS. Aetna and other insurance companies are not owned, controlled, or related to Tedd Koren, ergo they are secondary sources for our use here. The source specifically mentions KST, so it's usable and demonstrates that the technique is rejected by a major insurance carrier. You claim to be a quack guru, but instead you're failing to use a perfectly legitimate way to expose quackery. Weird! You should adopt DGG's rationale:

A pragmatic viewpoint which harmonizes well with our policies is expressed by David Goodman ("User:DGG"), one of our most esteemed and experienced editors. In real life he is a librarian, and here he is an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee:

"[I have a] distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." — User:DGG#Biases

Goodman points to the very real problem of attempts by certain skeptics to delete quack articles. This is a form of deletionism which violates the principles of the NPOV policy, as well as the notability policy (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to an article here). This is very biased editing.

Minority opinions should not be silenced arbitrarily. They should be described, but should be assigned less weight than mainstream opinions, simply because mainstream opinions are backed by more reliable sources, reliable research, and better fact checking. Lack of these things is part of what makes an opinion a "minority" opinion. If it can muster better evidence and documentation in better sources, it becomes a mainstream opinion.

Since articles on fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream point of view, the quack point of view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. The bias in favor of the mainstream should be clear, because that is the bias found in the best sources, and in most reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aetna and other insurance company websites do not meet RS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? It all depends on how it's used. Literally ANY website can be considered as a RS here, depending on its use. Outright rejection of insurance company websites is totally wrong. There is no policy based justification for such rejection. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have slightly mistated the case. Aetna and other insurance companies are not owned, controlled, or related to Tedd Koren, ergo they are WP:Independent sources. This fact makes them independent, not secondary. WP:Secondary does not mean independent. It happens that this source is both: it is independent because they are not related to the creator, and they are secondary because they derive their information by analyzing other (primary) sources. This is also an example of the difference between "secondary" sources and "good" sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I was informed by DGG and Northamerica1000 after asking for a userfication that the article Chiropractic Biophysics was an article which was single sourced by a new editor promoting the subject and the content fell under Speedy A11.

I was under the impression we were comparing the two articles which itself is blatant WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and invalid as a deletion rationale. But I now realized this is a discussion comparing this article to a deletion discussion the nominator states : "Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics", which oddly enough was snow deleted. I think it's safe to say the nominator's bias is obvious. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:
For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season).
1. Thomas, Clint (2010-11-17). "Kanawha City chiropractor receives advanced training in KST". Charleston Gazette-Mail. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  Koren Specific Technique, or KST, corrects nerve stress, also known as subluxations, created by distortions to the spine and body structure. In lieu of twisting or "cracking" of joints, gentle corrections are made to the spine and structural system.
  KST treatments can reduce or eliminate aches and discomfort virtually from head to toe. Areas that receive relief include, but are not limited to, cranial bones, the spinal column, TMJ (mandible/jaw), sternum, ribs, discs, shoulders, knees, feet and hands.
  ...
  The revolutionary technique was developed by chiropractor, author and educator Tedd Koren. After reading extensive testimonials about KST, Robertson received hands-on evidence when he visited Koren in Minnesota earlier this year and had an adjustment from the doctor himself. The results impressed Robertson enough to add KST to his chiropractic practice.
2. Menegus, Bryan (2016-03-05). "An A-to-Z Guide to Bullshit Alternative Medicine on YouTube". Gizmodo. Times Internet. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  Times Internet is a subsidiary of The Times Group.
  The article notes:
  Honorable mention: Koren Specific Technique. A branch of chiropractics where someone rubs your back with a very expensive vibrator. KST also makes its diagnoses by touching the occipital drop of the skull, which makes it not so different from phrenology.
3. McKinsey, Rebecca (2016-02-29). "New chiropractor returns to hometown, joins practice with role model". Carroll Daily Times Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  He has received training in two new techniques that he said are not widely used in western Iowa: the Koren Specific Technique and the Cranial Adjusting Turner Style.
  The Koren Specific Technique allows the chiropractor to work with patients in the position that causes them the most discomfort — for instance, standing for people who stand a lot at work, or sitting down for truck drivers who spend days in a seat.
4. Crow, Dianna (2010-05-17). "Rio Dell chiropractor moves business to Fortuna". Humboldt Beacon. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  Dr. Michael H. Crosbie has been practicing as a chiropractor for 8 years in Humboldt County. In an effort to better serve his patients, some who travel from as far south as Ukiah and north from Hoopa, Crosbie Chiropractic is moving to a more central location in Fortuna. After Monday, May 10, their new location will be at 1828 Main Street, next to Coast Central Credit Union.
  Dr. Crosbie is a graduate of Cleveland Chiropractic College in Los Angeles, Class of 1982 and has been practicing as a chiropractor for 28 years. Dr. Crosbie is trained in many low force techniques, but specializes in the Thompson, Palmer, Applied Kinesiology and Diversified applications. He has been practicing the Koren Specific Technique for 3 years and recently returned from an advanced KST seminar. KST is especially effective in the treatment of headaches, TMJ, vertigo and dizziness.
5. "C.S. doctor receives advanced training". The Times Leader. 2011-06-22. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  Joseph J. McAulliffe, D.C. of ProActive Family Chiropractic takes Koren Specific Technique (KST) training to help community. This technique was developed and taught by chiropractor, author and educator Tedd Koren, D.C.
  Benefits of this technique include: patients often see immediate results or improvements, long lasting, positive changes in posture, function and lessening of pain are often observed and adjustments frequently last or "hold" longer.
6. "Smiths to celebrate 50th anniversary". The Daily Times. 2005-06-22. Archived from the original on 2016-03-29. Retrieved 2016-03-29.
  The article notes:
  Dr. Scott Marsh, of Alcoa, has become one of the first chiropractors in the United States to become certified in the Koren Specific Technique. He was personally trained by Dr. Tedd Koren, the originator of this new adjusting technology. According to Dr. Koren, the technique permits chiropractors to analyze and correct subluxations accurately, specifically and with low-force to a greater degree.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying some of those sources confer notability is a bit of a stretch. The only two sources that seem to have a wide circulation are Gizmodo (and then, look at the title, and use common sense) and possibly The Times Leader (which I have never heard of, but may be significant). The other two are just about local doctors who have been trained, and that doesn't even cover all of the articles other issues. Finally, looking at the articles edit history, there were a few edits by a user named "Teddkoren". I really hope we can get consensus here. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources presented by User:Cunard are mass WP:MEDRS violations which cannot be used in the article and therefore do not count towards notability. This confirms there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources for the technique. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are only four reliable sources in the article. The MEDRS violations should not be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid rationale, this is not a valid medical technique and is not considered one therefore WP:MEDRS should not apply. Also please do not remove sources mid AfD. There are those who disagree those sources are unuseable therefore the AfD discussion was started to determine that. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith editing from QuackGuru, considered this is formal warning, the sources your removed from these edits is undisputed vandalism, as they are the strongest sources in the article. Specific this Aetna source stating this is not covered and then giving a detailed description as to what the technique is. Then the tone was changed to one which is highly promotional. For those unaware QuackGuru, has received a wave of topic bans specifically with fringe and E-cig topics, due to disruptive editing such as this. Any further removing of sources during an AfD will be taken seriously. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore sources that fail MEDRS and RS. Primary sources are not even RS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the specific source which you removed Aetna Healthcare which is the strongest source in the article. This is not good faith editing. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a secondary source. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it is. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aetna, Inc. /ˈɛtnə/ is an American managed health care company. It is absolutely not RS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't shown how any of the sources that were removed are reliable. On the talk page you wrote "There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information."[14] There is an issue with using primary sources. Primary sources are not reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QG, you are overstating the policies to the point of being wrong. All published sources are reliable for something (see the FAQ at the top of WT:V). Aetna's website is unquestionably reliable for statements about what that company says or claims to do. It is equally unquestionably unreliable for statements about, say, cold fusion or geopolitics. You cannot determine reliability without comparing the source to the statement. There is no "absolutely reliable source" or "absolutely unreliable source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could everyone please calm down? Edit wars at the article do no good, nor does canvassing. Rather than deleting the defective sources, why not just tag them with (for instance) ((primary-inline)), ((RS)), or ((MEDRS)) until the AFD concludes? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't work. The tags were removed without a logically explanation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a logical explanation? Plus after you retagged I did not revert, editors can still see the sources. But then after a wave of keeps you realized the sources have to be removed in order to get the article deleted. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far not a single editor has shown the topic is notable using reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We also need the sources to establish notability, and these sources have utterly failed at that. Can we put this article out of its misery? ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Recommend speedy keep due to bias nominations and invalid arguments from the deletion side. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the unreliable sources you restored was https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ If you think that source is reliable then you think practically any source is reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on its use. As a primary source about itself, it is specifically allowed for documentation purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you should always assume WP:GOODFAITH. Also, a speedy keep is not helping anything here - we have an incredibly lengthy AfD debate, and that's good considering that any consensus will have to be because it was debated. Regardless, I can honestly say I have zero bias or COI. Anyway, you could say I'm on the (pardon the pun) WP:FRINGE on whether or not to keep this. Since I have never !voted, Weak delete. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominators rationale --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QG's misapplication of MEDRS. MEDRS only applies to medical claims, not documentation and description of the subject and its claims, even if they are fringe and nonsense medical claims. It is allowable to use any source necessary to document the subject matter. If the subject makes nonsense claims, we document that they are nonsense using other and better sources. We don't allow fringe claims to stand unopposed, and we don't use the fact that they are nonsense to justify deleting them or failing to document them. They must be described and exposed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For medical claims MEDRS applies. For other claims WP:SECONDARY applies. You think Tedd Koren's website is reliable. I disagree with using the primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary sources are allowed to document the subject. That's policy. If we wrote an article about you, we would be allowed (and required!) to use what you have written, and your website, to document your claims and facts about you, even if they were nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could make a website and wrote down everything about me. That still doesn't confer notability, and none of the cited sources give a viable claim to notability. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are completely correct, primary sources do not establish notability and sources such as teddkoren.com are not valid as passing GNG. However primary sources can be used for information if secondary sources exist. Sources such as Mccoy Studies, Our Inner Ocean, Aetna, ND.gov and leedswestccg.nhs.uk are secondary and therefore do establish notability, any editor acting neutrally will not deny this. Again, not all sources are reliable but the ones I listed excluding Cunard's references which are also secondary, are reliable and secondary. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        When editors think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable there is a serious problem here. Mccoy Studies fails MEDRS. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No editor thinks https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable nor establishes any kind of notability. Other sources I listed however, do. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        According to your edits you think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable.[15][16] QuackGuru (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No it doesn't, that source was used in the proper function of primary sources, it does not establish notability, but can be used with discretion. Seems reasonable to allow it for stating the year of its invention, just like primary sources can be used for date of births. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Based on your edits and arguments there is no source that cannot be used in the article, especailly when you think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ can be used. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nowhere on the article is the fact that this is a nonsense technique. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fringe medical topics are notable. The removal of sources is troubling and based on QuackGuru's name I am going to suspect that they are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. 216.16.239.98 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note. 216.16.239.98 has been blocked for either a block evader/sockpuppet or someone editing logged out to avoid scrutiny. QuackGuru (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or selectively merge to Chiropractic). While there are sources for this topic, I do not think they are sufficiently extensive or independent of the subject as required by WP:NFRINGE but that this is rather a topic for which the discussion is "in-universe" for chiropractic. It would thus be very difficult to construct a properly neutral article giving us the views of the "wider world" as WP:VALID wants. Alexbrn (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Alexbrn - none of the sources are extensive (and those that are is primary source. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed by Cunard cover the subject extensively and independently, with several sources giving multiple paragraph descriptions. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems clear from the insurance source material that the technique is considered experimental. I don't think there are any medical claims made in the article as I write. But is it notable? Of Cunard's sources, all but the "Bullshit" source are local coverage of local practitioners. None of them are strong evidence of notability of the practice itself. One could claim that the number of articles, like the number of "providers" on the Koren website indicate that it is notable, but it seems like a close call. I believe that the WP:FRINGE sentence "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" applies. This really focuses us on the insurer statements. One could claim that if the technique was very uncommon, the insurers would not have a policy against overing it. But are three enough (although Aetna is massive)? It's a close call for me still, will dig in further. Chris vLS (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Chrisvls, there is a small problem with sourcing left. The first part "Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,"[unreliable medical source?] requires a MEDRS compliant source. Technically, all the sources are poor quality and do not show any notability whatsoever. It can be selectively merged into Chiropractic treatment techniques. QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it gets merged ("selectively" or otherwise), then it must not be deleted, because of licensing/attribution requirements.
    A statement that says "X insurance company decided not to cover it because of its experimental/lack of proof of efficacy" does not require a MEDRS-compliant source (even if we assume that this isn't FRINGE and therefore the rules for such claims should be relaxed). "Here's their reason for refusing to pay" is a business fact, not a biomedical one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - User talk:QuackGuruOops! I just saw this here, after writing about it on the talk page! Take a look, I think I get your point, let me know what you think of the proposal, it's in accord with the way User:WhatamIdoing is thinking about it . . . thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:Does deletion help - Best we confront the problems and explain them to our readers with links to reliable info over deletion. We are here to educate people not leave them in the dark by not explaining a thing on a subject that clearly is covered by the media. -- Moxy (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chiropractic. I have finally concluded that giving KST is own article gives undue weight to the subject. It's common enough that the insurance sources are denying it, making it worth a mention as a experimental or non-mainstream theory. But if due weight compelled a whole article, we would expect to see significant discussion of the merits/content/evidence in independent, reliable sources. (As mentioned in my comment above, Cunard's sources are mostly not supportive of notability of KST. Bravo for finding them, though!) Chris vLS (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Exact nature of the technique is not even part of the current content (apart from the use of some device). Anything of relevance can be merged with chiropractic. JFW | T@lk 08:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JFW the version you saw was a butchered version and unfair to judge the merits of the article. This is the [current version]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The "weak" part is not coming from a doubt about sourcing, but about WP:V: I feel we have no reliable source for a sentence like "this technique has not been proven efficient", and none of the alternatives look attractive. (1) not saying anything about the lack of validation may mislead readers, (2) saying "chiropractors disagree with the technique" can be misleading as it implies chiropractic itself is serious medicine (which it is not), and (3) saying "no reliable scientific study has been made" is borderline POV as it implies that because it was not scientifically studied it is necessary bollocks (which is an erroneous reasoning even if the conclusion is probably valid). If no suitable formulation can be found, then deletion is warranted regardless of notability.

For notability, the insurance sources look enough to me (they are not medical but that is irrelevant): they implicitly establish that the technique is in a relatively wide use (clients have been asking for them) and that makes for a presumption of notability. Cunard's sources help a bit too, but I would not base a GNG claim purely on them.

If GNG is satisfied, substandard sources can be used for the details of the technique (e.g. if Korren's site says that the KST works better under a full moon, it is a reliable source for "proponents of the KST claim it is affected by moon phases" - see WP:RSCONTEXT). Tigraan (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and a merge with chiropractic as proposed above would be good if it wasn't for the fact that there is debate about whether this technique is chiropractic in nature. Sounds like How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? to me, but the debate exists so such a merge would be POV. Tigraan (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the joining in Tigraan . . . it's a good point. I think that there's sufficient sourcing -- actually all of the sources but Koren -- to place it under chiropratic. Just in case that's your main hesitation to merge . . . Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that given the subject notability and sources, a separate article may be justified. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been around since 2015 and is still a WP:STUB. This may suggest that there is a lack of WP:Reliable sources. While WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, keep this in mind. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking through WP:STUB:

If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No !vote Just to be clear: My participation in this discussion is focused solely on the mis-representation of policies and guidelines. I have no opinion about whether the English Wikipedia should have a separate article about this subject. IMO it's a matter of editorial judgement, and all outcomes – keep, merge, delete – are potentially acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 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) 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex scandals in local schools (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

Not sure if any of this essay is salvageable. Adam9007 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Almost none of the article is actually about sex scandals in Hong Kong schools anyway; it only mentions one case. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article has nothing to do with Hong Kong. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequately sourced, pretty generic student essay, not any encyclopedia article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing at all to suggest an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slumberland Furniture[edit]

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

Fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tentatively say Delete, fails WP:ORG as-is. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found some links but this is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10].

Note that many of these sources provide significant additional background and contemporary information about the company beyond the headline titles of the articles. Also of note is that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "St. Anthony: Slumberland Furniture buys a headquarters complex with room to grow". Star Tribune.
^ "This generous community: Slumberland Furniture, Devils Lake donates beds for needy kids". Devils Lake Journal.
^ "Slumberland Furniture donates beds to area families". Echo Press.
^ "Furnishing a business". The Herald Palladium.
^ "Slumberland delivers beds to those in need". Columbus Telegram. 17 December 2015.
^ Hesselberg, George (5 December 2013). "Local church, business team up for a good night's sleep". Wisconsin State Journal.
^ "Slumberland Furniture donates mattresses, box springs to area nonprofits". The Grand Island Independent.
^ Brian Johnson. "Slumberland paid $11.5M for Imation campus". Finance & Commerce. (subscription required)
^ Skurzewski, Joe. "Minot's Slumberland Furniture Gives Back to Those in Need".
^ "Slumberland donates 40 mattress sets to MICA". Times-Republican.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for evaluation of the sources presented here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep North America is right. It does clearly meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Hard to think of many retailers with 125 stores across 12 states that would not be notable. Edwardx (talk) 21:09, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LawnStarter[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article's creator removed ((db-corp)) twice, and has a conflict of interest. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage comprises venture capital announcements probably sponsored by the subject and passing mentions. Esquivalience ^t 17:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing particularly better aside from a few links and I believe I'm somewhat familiar with this company, there's nothing yet for a solidly better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8].

Note that several of the articles provide significant background and contemporary information about the company, beyond the title of the headlines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lawncare Made Easy, Lawnstarter Raises $6 Million Series A". The Huffington Post. 15 June 2015.
^ "LawnStarter Raises $6M To Become Your "Lawn Care Concierge"". TechCrunch. AOL. 2 June 2015.
^ Calnan, Christopher (3 June 2015). "Austin online marketplace operator LawnStarter raises funding - Austin Business Journal". Austin Business Journal.
^ "LawnStarter Raises $6 Million in a Series A Round". SiliconHills.
^ "LawnStarter Expands to San Antonio and Four Other Markets". SiliconHills.
^ "LawnStarter Launches in Austin to Simplify Lawn Care for Consumers". SiliconHills.
^ Calnan, Christopher (1 August 2014). "LawnStarter uses the Web to connect property owners with contractors". Austin Business Journal.
^ "Austin City Council to vote on 'Fair Chance Hiring' on Thursday". KTBC.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented here. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) clearly demonstrate that LawnStarter passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 4 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) 21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Tschelan[edit]

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

This painter does not appear to meet the WP:ARTIST guidelines for notability. It would seem to me that Tschelan was one of many artists of a milieu of his time or place, and not one that stood out from that crowd. I also note that there are no corresponding "fr:Hans Tschelan" or "de:Hans Tschelan" articles: those pages would be expected about Shirt58 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very easy to establish the notability of the pre-internet artists in case they are not names that you can't shout out immediately. Problem with this article is that I didn't find any references that his works are part of any significant collection and also, no reviews of his works. Also, it's suspicious that the article contains only two works of him, which are recently poped up at the auctions, so I tend to think, it was written to promote the sales. So, unless someone bring in the information I couldn't find online, I tend to Delete. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability. I have found some indications that there may be references. It's not much, stuff like the index page of Der Getreue Eckart, Volume 8, Issue 1 that refers to a 7 page article about Tschelan, "painter of colourful peasant life". His work seems to come up at auction occasionally, but not at prices (+/- €600) that make me think his work is highly valued. Mduvekot (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE and there's nothing imaginably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 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 keep. Not really sure why this was relisted but anyway no one's objected to the sources provided and it does look to meet GNG so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Waller (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Not notable; head of two small companies, and non notable TV presenter. Most of the articles mention him only in passing DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really invested one way or the other but Waller is also apparently the star of a BBC1 series, Beat The Bailiff. Not sure how much more notable that makes him, but... Quis separabit? 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWHOSWHO Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the show appears to have run a few episodes only, and others had principal roles in most of them. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWHOSWHO and GNG/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ive created this article several weeks ago, it was already reviews and updated by other users, I dont see why the deletion discussion should be made after all that.

Jamie Waller is a small but significant businessman in the UK, he is only CEO of two company, but those two companys have an important and significant income, this can be seen in the references of the article, beside this, I dont think that an article about a businessman should be eliminated just because the businessman is "small", that doesnt sound like an argument about notability or significancy, in fact, it just sounds like you dont want this article to be here and that is all. This man has had a significant press cover up, he has been nominated for several important awards in his country, and he has had quite a tv appearance, all this make him significant enough to be in the enciclopedia. Im sure the article can be improved, almost every article in Wikipedia can be improved by some way or another, but eliminating it just because "he is a small businessman" just sounds like harrasment to me.Wizardlis54 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to me the person has some good reference like http://bbc.co.uk interviews and articles etc.. So according to me it should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya satapathy (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Underneath the overwhelming promotionalism, most of which I have now removed, there is an article about a notable individual who has respectably in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Oddly the article did not mention any criticism of Waller's company until I added it. Thparkth (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft at best if needed because this article still suggests whether he's solidly independently notable, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Please note the sources I have listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject actually quite comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (subscription required), [25]. It's important to note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a lot of the references in the article are not great, but the ones that User:Northamerica1000 links to above are good enough to push this past the GNG. Doesn't mean that the article does not require improvement, however. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 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 speedy delete per G3 (blatant hoax). Rebb ing 17:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Princess Cassandra Windsor[edit]

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

This page appears to be a hoax. Some of the links listed are not publicly viewable, the rest appear to not meet WP:RS. Searching for this woman finds only a few recent web references to her (some under the name "Cassandra Hudson"), a photo that's actually of Stella Banderas, references to a seemingly non-existent upcoming film, blog posts about her supposedly appearing on an upcoming season of a TV show, etc. Several of the links, including the Everpedia one mentioned here, have all been created in the last week. This looks like someone's creating a fake web persona. At the very least it needs serious RS to be credible and establish notability. JamesG5 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this is one of the linked sources https://www.everipedia.com/cassandra-windsor-245433912465302/ (as mentioned, only recently created), and the FB page linked there has been shut down. As can be seen here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3193178/Melanie-Griffith-look-alike-daughter-Stella-Banderas-wear-black-outfits-Los-Angeles.html that's Stella Banderas in the photo. Here's an example of a page using some of this same questionable information and the same photo under the "Cassandra Hudson" name http://reign-cw.wikia.com/wiki/Cassandra_Hudson. The 2016 movie she's listed as appearing in also doesn't seem to exist outside of a Vimeo trailer by an apparently non-existent film studio all of whose actors & directors seem to only exist on the same web pages as Ms. Windsor. JamesG5 (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an apparent hoax cobbled together from self-published sources. Incidentally, how can one be "at the same place" as another person in the line of succession to a throne? You'd think the entire purpose of a formal line of succession is to prevent that kind of thing. —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, so tagged. We should not let this nonsense linger for seven days. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close please, as I believe this was deleted under CSD. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 16:17, 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 I simply see this AfD going nowhere else and there's apparently no need for AfD time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

André Adam[edit]

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

Per our policy on Subjects notable only for one event (BLP1E). It matches each of the three criteria listed there. The only seemingly notable source outside of the event is that of his employer, the United Nations, which is hardly independent. We need to establish why this person is notable through extensive discussion among reliable, independent sources rather than saying "he's an ambassador, therefore he must be notable!" Jolly Ω Janner 09:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly notable as an Ambassador to Algeria, Zaire and the United States.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 11:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable as ambassador for several countries over the years. His death also got plenty of media coverage which provides the fact that he wasnt "just another ambassador". good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Ambassadors get articles per well-established reality. Given the tone of the nominator (the United Nations "is hardly independent", seriously?), I consider this to be frivolous. James F. (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Victims of bombing attacks aren't necessarily notable, but ambassadors are notable. epicgenius @ 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Serious thought and relisting Normally, I would say keep. However, seriously think if ambassadors are notable people. I think so. But then Wikipedia considers TV episodes as inherently notable, which I disagree. To be fair, I then ask "are ambassadors automatically notable?" I say yes but welcome the discussion. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for his extensive diplomatic career, including three ambassadorships. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the subsequent posts, I realize that I was insufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of ambassadors. As such, I am changing my vote to a delete (and will perform better due diligence in the future). Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long-standing Wikipedia practice in fact holds that ambassadors are not intrinsically notable (as members of a national legislature are, for example.) I know that the editors above wrote in good faith, but I have participated in several AFD discussions about Ambassadors, and it is simply untrue that they get articles. See: WP:DIPLOMAT. I would, of course, change my vote if it could be shown that sufficient in-depth, reliable sources exist to estabilsh notability under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too am concerned of the notion that diplomats are apparently so notable that they need not satisfy our other policies to warrant an article. No one appears to have tackled the concerns raised i.e. that there is a lack of reliable sources based on this person. I mentioned the United Nations as not being independent, because his work was heavily associated with them (it's like how universities have articles on their lecturer). Useful source of information, but not a way to establish notability. Maybe some sources which give something other than a fleeting mention of this person outside of the terrorist attack can be used? Jolly Ω Janner 18:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a news archive search on Proquest [26], only 146 hits over the decades, most of them ot other people named Andres Adams. A couple to his death in Brussels. The rest are routine mentions connected with some aspect of the routine woek of an ambassador. Hits at google books [27] appear to be mere listings. I'm just not finding notability. I understand the impulse to write articles like this in the wake of a tragic death in an atrocity. But I can't locate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I too ran Google news searches before the event and came up blank (to be fair he's been retired for some time), but there was nothing in books either. I'd imagine almost every person killed in the attack has some national or at least local newspaper which wrote a story about them including what their career was. The policy I listed in the nomination exists to prevent exactly this type of issue. If it weren't for the attack, any attempt at creating this article would be simply speedy deleted. No question asked. Jolly Ω Janner 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note (Written in response to question brought ot my talk page.) The rule that beiong an ambassador is not not sufficient to support notability, notability of ambassadors must be established by sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG, applies to the ambassadors of all countries. Lots of people have important jobs, but do not have articles because they do their important jobs quietly and without drawing public attention. Ambassadors are often notable, they will have more than the routine mentions that all ambassadors have, routine announcement of their appointment, receptions attended and so forth. A notable ambassador would do something (such as play a significant role in an important negotiation) that draws in-depth profiles in reliable media, or serious analysis of his work in major media, books, and/or policy journals. We have many articles on ambassadors, but only a fraction of ambassadors have articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This so-called blanket statement that every ambassador warrants a Wikipedia article is a fallacy. While we have guidelines that suggest some topics are likely to be notable enough for an article, one should never use this as a reason in itself when adequate reasons are presented that it violates our policies on notability. Jolly Ω Janner 20:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for now he got a lot of coverage as a former ambassador, killed in terror attack. This is in addition for being not just ambassador, but an ambassador to US and UN. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many ambassadors are notable, and an ambassador killed under these circumstances would surely generate enough coverage to satisfy the GNG, even if the pre-existing coverage were somehow found insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot see a reason why an American ambassador to Belgium should be more notable than the Belgian ambassador to the United States of America. 2001:7D0:88E4:CC80:E4D0:770C:4A8F:127E (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes right! Keep this entry. Royalrec (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd agree that ambassadors aren't inherently notable, but Adam was, at the time of his retirement, one of the highest ranking diplomats in Belgium. The fact that he was his country's Ambassador to the United States and Ambassador to the UN should be enough. Rockhead126 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable diplomat. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly notable individual throughout his life, as an Ambassador to Algeria, Zaire & also the United States.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ambassadors are almost always notable, this wasn't some diplomatic underling but the ambassador from Belgium to the US & UN among others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed, ambassadors are almost always notable. Wikipedia's guidelines are just that: guidelines, not something set in stone. Mr. Adams served in some of the highest profile diplomatic postings in the world - the U.S., UN, among others - and even if he had served in smaller countries, he would merit inclusion in references, diplomatic histories and, yes, Wikipedia. The tendency on Wikipedia to delete figures in the public service sphere - national Ambassadors, diplomats, First Spouses, large city mayors, and sometimes even cabinet ministers - is incredibly short sighted. Scanlan (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors coming to this page: This page could be kept it someone would find reliable sources (newspapers; books) detailing significant activity by Mr. Adams, a crucial role in some diplomatic negotiation, initiating a cultural project - something of that sort that attracted significant coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note I feel like the Grinch at the Christmas party, but I do like to double check myself, so I googled him again, and continue to find that while he is mentioned in lists of the dead, like this Wall Street Journal article [28] , journalists can find nothing to say about his career beyond the fact that he was posted to various embassies. He is known for no accomplishment An nice chart has been made showing, the Belgian Ambassadors who preceded and followed him in various posts; none are blue-linked. The reality seems to be that he was not known for anything beyond doing his job as ambassador. Ambassadors often aren't, which is why they aren't automatically given pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the amount of editors who have shown interest in keeping this article, I'm surprised no one has yet to find more sources on Adam to help establish notability. If anything this just makes me believe more strongly that there really aren't any sources out there, other than the UN bio page. Jolly Ω Janner 07:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion that high ranking diplomat, killed in the terror attack has the right for an article. Also the problem in searching the sources for me, that most of them has to be in French, which I don't know. So, it would be nice to have someone french speaking to look at it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to translate the text in sources (or at least not any better than a Google translate) to establish notability. Although, someone from a French-speaking country may have more preferential Google settings. There is no article on the French Wikipedia and no mention of Andre Adam on the attacks articles. Jolly Ω Janner 08:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding attack articles, I would say it's a bit of exaggeration to say "no mention of Andre Adam on the attacks articles". What about those: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. :) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia "articles". Jolly Ω Janner 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one Wikipedia article can't be used to establish notability of another topic, but this 2016_Brussels_bombings#Victims exists anyway. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it in regards to notability, but as a potential route solution finding French language sources on Adams. Jolly Ω Janner 12:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In what way would the Belgian Ambassador to the United States and Permanent Representative to the UN not be notable? I happen to be one of those who believes all ambassadors are notable, but to suggest that diplomats in these positions aren't notable beggars belief. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to exclude the memorials by news agencies on the back of the Brussels attacks, we are only left with www.un.org/press/en/1998/19980908.bio3176.html - a single press release from the UN on his appointment. Per Wikipedia:Notability "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability." I too expected Adam to be a notable topic and was hoping to providing plenty of sources to expand the article, but came up short. The concept that all ambassadors meet WP's notability guidelines is dangerous. Adam is a relatively recent, long-serving and highly ranked diplomat. I cannot imagine what woeful quantity of sources exist on an unknown ambassador whose carer spanned 2 years from the 18th century (hypothetical example). Jolly Ω Janner 13:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sad fact that if you're a teenager who does something moronic on Youtube, a singer who is popular for three days or a footballer who kicks a ball around a few times for a living then you'll have far more internet coverage than a senior diplomat or civil servant who's devoted their life to their country (especially one who isn't British or American). That does not mean they're more notable and it is a serious (but unfortunately all too common) misinterpretation of the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines to suggest that is the case. Common sense says that some people are clearly notable for the position they hold whatever a strict interpretation of WP guidelines may say. That's why we have WP:IAR; to prevent this overly proscriptive interpretation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. It has driven me to give a more vigorous seacrh of publications before the time of the Internet. I have found a couple of examples, where it looks like there may be more than just a "fleeting" mention. There's only a snippet view available, so I cannot use the sources in any meaningful way and it would appear as though they are not devoted to Adam as the subject. I'll ping E.M.Gregory to see if anyone else thinks there's a chance with them: Daily Report and Agricultural Libraries Information Notes. Jolly Ω Janner 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As he clearly meets WP:GNG by being an ambassador to the UN and multiple countries. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being Belgian ambassador to Zaire and the US places him as the senior Belgian diplomat of his generation, everything else aside. Keeping Wikipedia:Systematic bias in mind, would we be having this discussion if he were, say, British or American? I've got J. Christopher Stevens in mind as a parallel. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Stevens was killed in the line of duty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my earlier days on Wikipedia (like, a whole year ago) I argued for keeping ambassadors. I also argued for keeping the names of the victims of terrorist attacks. If there is a group of editors willing to change that policy, and keep/list the names and list them with brief (well-sourced) bios of the victims of terrorist attacks, I am willing to join such a group and change that policy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Bearcat , since Ambassador is a political appointee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:12, 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 speedy delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Stimpson (singer/songwriter)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability satisfying WP:MUSICBIO; dePRODded by original editor. PamD 09:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: note that Josh Stimpson was deleted A7 3 times in 2013-14. PamD 09:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Seven international beauty pageants[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be an established term, probably coined by the article's author. The supposed references do not use the term; Google search didn't return anything relevant. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no serious content. Looks part of the ongoing campaign to promote minor pageants. The Banner talk 11:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an original research, analysis, and synthesis for which no reliable published sources exist to support the "Good Seven international beauty pageants." It's an advertisement.--Richie Campbell (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research that lists together several minor pageants. No credible evidence that the term exists outside Wikipedia. The references don't support the article. Independent searches yielded a single blog that references the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX Legacypac (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX looks about right. Edwardx (talk) 21:03, 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) 20:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Guitar School[edit]

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

A school in India, no third-party references. Originally speedily deleted, but schools are specifically excluded from the WP:CSD#A7 criterion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Music1201 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 12:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this type of specialist school counts as an educational institution for the purposes of A7. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing convincing for notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing about this online or anywhere else Rubenstein.mark (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I can find nothing beyond FB and local listings. Not even locally notable. Edwardx (talk) 14:41, 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. It doesn't seem that the rewrite is so substantial as to invalidate previous opinions. Sandstein 21:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it appears to be a content fork. All the information is suitably covered in the appropriate articles. No need for this one to be around. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The content of this article is WP:SYNTH as it attributes pretty much all deaths in recent fighting to "the Military intervention against ISIL", including civilians killed by the loathsome group. This topic is much better off being covered in the relevant articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:POVFORK and [[WP:SYNTH. User:Mr rnddude, and User:Nick-D explain problem very well.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine ether way I created this article because in the main article, Military intervention against ISIL, in the infobox, editors have been adding every single person (civilian or military) killed by ISIL throughout the world to the infobox making it unnecessarily over-inflated. And yes, I agree with Nick-D that this was (on their part) WP:SYNTH and OR. Some of the deaths they added to the infobox I think weren't even ISIL-related. The only reason I created this article was to downsize that over-inflated infobox. After moving the information from the infobox to this article, removing ([38] 17,314 bytes) all individual civilian deaths in the infobox (leaving only military deaths) and leaving only a small summarization of civilian deaths in that infobox, I wouldn't think its a content fork if the same subject is not anymore covered in the other article. However, like I said, I did think myself that the unnecessarily long list of all ISIL-related deaths in the infobox was, as you say, SYNTH, OR and you can add UNDUEWEIGHT to that in my opinion. So, when creating this article, I did expect someone would nominate it for deletion based on this. So, basically, I agree with everything @Nick-D:, @Legacypac:, @E.M.Gregory: and everyone else said. So, I'm fine ether way if the article is deleted or not. But in the future, people shouldn't be allowed to add this much unnecessary individual deaths to the infobox of the main article on the military intervention since its OR, SYNTH and UNDUEWEIGHT and basically most of the deaths that were in the box had nothing to do with the intervention itself. And I'm amazed someone did not do something about it up until now and left it as it was. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I see what you mean, I took a look at the page you linked as it used to be and that infobox is ridiculously over inflated. I think that it was entirely unnecessary to go to that detail, perhaps mentioning the 1300 Kurdistan deaths, for example, separately due to the high death toll and then having the rest summarized as a total under worldwide or other. If it is particularly necessary then a section of that article could have been devoted to it, or, if necessary and if anybody finds more pertinent a sub-article or sub-list created. The article in question Military intervention against ISIL is overburdened as it is. I think I now understand the naming you gave to your article and why it was made the way it was. I think the contentious issues that myself and others had was firstly the labeling of terror victims as being victims of military intervention, secondly I personally read it as a tabulation, a sort of 'keeping score', of deaths which I now realize was not what was intended (simply de-cluttering the main article was) and finally that this information would (and should) have been covered in the relevant articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe spread the information out through different articles? For example the table on ISIS attacks to the article on ISIS itself. I don't know, I'm spitballing here. XD EkoGraf (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be entitled Deaths caused by ISIL or Victims of ISIL and it would make a lot more sense. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly okay with this idea, and would recommend linking it to the main article if its done. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that Rename. Thanks for the suggestion, User:Legacypac.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename As others have noted, the title is highly misleading an inappropriate, since it implies that this is a list of casualties inflicted by those fighting ISIL, when many of the casualties listed have been caused by ISIL itself. I still remain unconvinced that a separate article is needed, but if it is kept, it should be at least renamed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have renamed the article per the proposition that seems to have been supported by most. EkoGraf (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, despite rename, this remains a WP:POVFORK and [[WP:SYNTH, as language in lede makes clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at rewriting the lede to kill POV and Synth. Unless somebody else would like to. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Please do so, thank you! The initial text was there to conform with the structure about the casualties that was already made over at the military intervention article, that we all agree was in-proper and had to be dealt with long ago. In regard to it being a POV fork, like I said, it was already POVed and SYNTHed in the original article. I hope with Mr rnddude's help this can be dealt with. As for the fork thing, I'm not seeing how its a fork if there is no other existing article on this particular subject elsewhere on Wikipedia (I removed most of the original POV/SYNTH compilation of the figures from the original article/infobox). But if you feel there are elements that feel forkish feel free to correct them. EkoGraf (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the SYNTH issue lies with the figures, I think the problem is more specifically confined to the lede, specifically "In retaliation, ISIL, or ISIL-inspired jihadists, conducted more than a dozen attacks in more than half a dozen countries, leaving hundreds of civilian casualties." This synthesizes the fact that many states are in conflict with ISIL with the subsequent attacks on various states. But, worse than that to many people, it, albeit unintentionally, gives the notion that ISIL is in someway justified in doing so (retaliating for crimes committed against them, I don't think too many people would appreciate this sentiment). As for FORK, link back to the main article, thus making this one a sub article and the fork issue should be dealt with. Finally POV, making the lede completely neutral should suffice. I'll look into this and try clean it up, or propose a new lede in here. Depending on what I come up with. Will report tomorrow (my time, possibly today depending where everyone is). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr rnddude: Thank you very much for your time and effort. Looking forward to it. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AfD as outdated and open a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths caused by ISIL. Because the page has been renamed and rewritten, much of the earlier discussion is outdated. I recommend opening a fresh AfD to discuss the current state of the article. Cunard (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that while article creator claims to have claimed up lede, the lede still claims that attacks on civilians in Brussels, etc. are In retaliation for interventions against ISIS in Iraq/Syria. The POV POV perspective, which has been in article since it was created, defines it as a WP:POVFORK. Far better to keep material in main article where more editors will keep an eye on it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 4 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) 20:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Visually Impaired in the Digital Age[edit]

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

Written like an essay; not encyclopedic. Music1201 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes this definitely reads like an WP:ESSAY which is stated full of unsupported OR. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this dreadful POV & OR essay. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per blatant WP:OR. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for a better Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 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 speedy delete. by RHaworth. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

सुधीर मिश्रा[edit]

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

This is the English Wiki

^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e

07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete as per above Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Can be taken as WP:G7 since the author blanked but it was reverted, as well as probably WP:A10 (Sudhir Mishra exists and it appears that this covers him). Possibly intended for the Hindi WP, as it does not currently exist there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:29, 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. Never usually close so early but articles like these are always kept and so they should be (and I say that as a reader not a British citizen!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2006 United Kingdom budget[edit]

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

I don't believe this is a topic notable enough to have it's own article. Music1201 (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fixed (in particular) the infobox. The page is one of a series -- 2011 United Kingdom budget or 2012 United Kingdom budget gives a some indication of what the page could be. UK budgets are a significant annual economic event, get worldwide news coverage as well as ample general national UK coverage. Examples for 2006 include The Guardian and the BBC. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, not deletion. A cursory search on Google for 2006 UK budget etc shows that broad independent coverage exists. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All ~~national~~ budgets of major jurisdictions meet GNG in my experience. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are provincial budgets here that I daresay would, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that major legislation like this passes WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:52, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kulbhushan Yadav[edit]

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

WP:SINGLEEVENT. He could be well mentioned in the main article in Two-three lines like Pakistan claimed to arrest a RAW agent but Indian Govt. denied his links with RAW. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 07:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the event just recently occurred, and it is in the news. The article doesn't assert that he was definitely a RAW agent, but lists the allegation. The capture of a Naval Officer – of any country – is certainly notable and unfortunate, especially if they're engaged in counter-terrorism activities. The fact that he was arrested and accused is what's explained in the article. There is evidence for that. The article also asserts what your comment states: that the Indian gov't denies any affiliation (though that's standard practice). The article should be kept, and hopefully within a month, the article will be amended to say, "He was cleared of all charges and released."
^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e
07:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Passes GNG as it has been mentioned by multiple Reliable sources. His capture is the focal point of a multi nation flash point which may have global repercussions. Iran, Pakistan and India are all focused on this individual. I am not sure how anyone can even dream of him not passing GNG as almost a BILLION people are getting information about him on an hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources such as [39], [40], [41] and etc. Mhhossein (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:1E and WP:TOOSOON. Userfy if desired. At this point there doesn't seem much beyond the usual Pakistan/India hysteria: someone has been charged with espionage and the other side has denied it. Indeed the refs seem tightly grouped around the accusation and the denials. Now, if this actually amounts to a trial or there are some lasting repercussions -- and notability -- then I've no issue with the article being restored. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal:I think WP:1E is the very relevant policy here, too. Mhhossein (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.227.74 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arrest was covered not only by Pakistani media, but also by the Indian and International media. Passes GNG and RS, Per FreeatlastChitchat. Faizan (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The incident is certainly notable. The fact that India has accepted him as a national—the naval officer who retired prematurely and arrested in another country over espionage is sufficient to warrant its own article. I disagree with WP:1E policy being applied here. This isn't usual India-Pakistan outburst otherwise this too along with many others would have made their ways for separate articles. sami ^talk 10:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The article pass the notability criteria therefore it can be kept.However,controversial and undecided matters may removed.Only claim of Pakistan and Indian response may highlighted in few sentences, other stories may be removed till verification.Zarghun11 (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That what has been done! Which stories you are talking about? Be more sepecific please. Faizan (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after recent confession video this article will mirror harsh fact of state sponsored terrorism. Summary of events may also be included here [42] . Pprcgi (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is certainly notable as it touches the significant issue of state sponsored terrorism.--SMahenS (Talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - This is obviously an important event that needs to be covered in Wikipedia. But it is clearly not a biography article. The person is not notable by any stretch of imagination. I recommend it be changed to an event Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav and treated as such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not a newspaper; minor event and can be covered in Research and Analysis Wing. Esquivalience ^t 22:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move from BLP style to incident style article. No different to many of those listed in the categories Category:American intelligence personnel who defected to the Soviet Union, Category:American spies and Category:American spies against the Soviet Union. Clearly a noteworthy topic AusLondonder (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per Kautilya3 and AusLondonder. Seems the most sensible solution to avoid 1E. GAB^Hello! 18:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead character of a significant incident is certainly notable.--SMahenS (Talk) 17:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It is a very important international development and both the Indian and Pakistani accounts of the story are presented. Please keep this article. Intellectual123 cool (talk) —_{moved from article's talkpage link sami ^talk 22:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)}[reply]
Move to close – Admin tools required to move the page to the existing redirect, Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a notable person and is a part of a huge international incident which will have long term effect on the region. His actions have created numerous incidents and nurtured terrorists organizations which have their own wikipedia articles. So we should have a wikipedia article for him too. One more wikipedia article separately may please be created for "Arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav". There is more to tell. --119.156.61.165 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Notability is established through WP:RS and there are enough reliable sources in the article to establish his. WP:SINGLEEVENT do not apply here as he was not arrested in relation with some event and according to sources, he has been involved in multiple terrorist activities. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:23, 3 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. I misstated that this was a neologism. I will return with a re-nomination later. (non-admin closure) Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy seconds (sexual practice)[edit]

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

It seems like a non-notable neologism. What all is there to add to this beyond a dictionary definition. Maybe this? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I would hope that most people know what is meant by Sloppy Seconds. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sorry but this seems plenty notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Also not a neologism, unless it's still considered "relatively new" after 50 years of documented usage in print. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:13, 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. No prejudice against userfication or draftification if requested. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COD (film)[edit]

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

Not notable future film that does not meet the guideline relating to notability of future films. Has also been deleted once previously as an expired PROD. sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

searches:

WP:INDAFD: COD Movie "obert Megha Satish K. Samudre Passion Movies, Ltd. Jatin Negi Preeti Choudhury [https://4d1fac7452666a9f1a1e7b6fa5af791fa725173b.googledrive.com/host/0B3ke7sJYbO1gVkRjUVh6bmtqeVU/IndianEnglishNewspaperSearch.html#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Pradeep%20Verma%22&gsc.sort= Pradeep Verma}

and...

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)

studio:(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)

Delete and okay with a possible return to author for more work, as currently WP:NF is failed. This thing "might" be completed and slated for a June release, but i found no evidence that it is and no sources speaking about its production or filming. If proper sources come forward, please ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best and Draft if needed as this is too soon, with nothing else convincing to keep yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satish K. Samudre[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guideline for creative professionals. A lot of the articles linked to do not show Samudre in a leading role in their creation (refer WP:DIRECTOR point 3). sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 08:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. HarryKernow (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better for both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he's truly notable someone else will write an article on him. This editor's attempts at self-promotion are more evident in his three-times speedy-deleted article Passion Movies Pvt. Ltd. —SMALL JIM 10:42, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, as indicated in the ((multiple issues)) template. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. Surely he is notable given his position in Afghani entertainment. However, it's difficult to find evidence of this. I suspect that this is one of those cases where we need someone actually familiar with Afghani culture and its discussion in English language press to help out, rather than make a decision from ignorance. Ross-c (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now as unless solid sources can be found, this still seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 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. A clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Webb III[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball player per WP:NCOLLATH. Article was WP:A7 speedy deleted, now re-created. Drm310 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator rationale. Quis separabit? 19:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a future pro basketball player. He deserves to have an article. RC 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbCilek (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: RobbCilek (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

@RobbCilek: Wikipedia articles are about topics that are already notable, not topics that might become notable. --Drm310 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he is a future pro basketball player, he can be the subject of a future Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG. Can be recreated if he meets WP:NHOOPS, but will require great improvement over what is already there. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability as shown. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majed Jaber Alhamoud Al-Sabah[edit]

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

Totally unsourced vanity article that lets us know that he uses "famous applications like Instagram and Snapchat to help him present himself to the people". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Thomas.W ^talk 11:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" have been added, but when checked one is to a non-existant page, one is to a blog-like page (in Arabic but checked through Google Translate) listing people they think have an impact on Instagram etc, and the third is to a page (also in Arabic) listing the names of the board of trustees, including the subject of the article, of a local cultural center. Meaning that none of them establishes any notability for the subject. Thomas.W ^talk 11:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the sources, try to search in google by use his short name Majed Al-Sabah, moreover I added sources of Time, Bloomberg and CNN.--سامي الرحيلي (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks real notability Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically as unless the Keep voter above can actually better improve the article, this article is obviously still troubled and is best deleted until better is available. Simply nothing convincing to keep as this will simply encourage others to at least say "Hey, that was accepted at AfD, let's add others!". SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically a vanity article. Just not enough comprehensive coverage to meet WP:GNG. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W, Heyyouoverthere, SwisterTwister, and Chrisw80: Request to revisit the discussion, per sources found. Also pinging سامي الرحيلي to bring this to their attention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The subject actually comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. Perhaps users opining to delete only based their assessment of notability based upon sources that were in the article, rather than the availability of sources, as per WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Sheik Of Chic". Time.
^ "'Chic sheikh' shows Arab women how to be sexy". The Independent.
^ "This Sheikh is making perfume". New York Post.
^ "The Fragrance Kitchen (TFK) Hits Dubai". Style.com (published by Condé Nast).
^ "Spice age". Financial Times.
^ "Majed Al-Sabah : Redefining retail, luxury and the arts for the Middle Eastern consumer". LS:N.
^ "Majed Al Sabah - CNN Interview". CNN.
^ Sheikh Majed’s The Fragrance Kitchen. Haute Living.
^ "Al Sabah apre un «corner» di profumiAlla Rinascente". Il Giornale. (in Italian) (English-translated article).
^ "3 influential people, including two arabs...what is their story?". Middle East Broadcasting Center. (English-translated article).
^ FX: Design, Business and Society. p. 38, p. 65. (subscription required)
^ Travel & Leisure. (subscription required)
^ Time. Volume 164. 2004. "Retail Renegade Sheik Majed al-Sabah Claim to fame: President and chairman of the Villa Moda empire, al-Sabah, 35, has brought luxury shopping to the Middle East and helped re-educate the West on the spending habits of the region ..." (subscription required)

Speedy delete, WP:G11, "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I don't know whether he's notable and am frankly not interested in finding out, but this exercise in self-promotion needs to go. Can then be rewritten by a non-COI editor. Sandstein 21:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per Sandstein. The number of reliable independent sources this article has doesn't matter if it fails G11. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's all good. I may create a new article from scratch after this is deleted, written from an entirely neutral point of view based only upon what sources state. Then again, I may not... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abraxas Lifestyle[edit]

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

Puffy article about a magazine that fails independent coverage per WP:GNG. Nothing on GBooks, a couple of passing mentions on GNews. The sources mentioned in the article are either directly self-published, submitted to other parties by the subject itself (e.g. compare http://luxurylifestyleawards.com/en/news/515.html?contentonly=1 with http://abraxaslifestyle.com/about-us), or merely passing mentions. The page was speedied before as being an advert. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Wiki wants to be an encyclopedia. This belongs at a press agency. Anmccaff (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not enough coverage by WP:RS to make this one stick. A search results in passing mentions about collaborations with other corporations which actually contravenes - notability cannot be inherited. Maharayamui (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as i see no signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:18, 2 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Claxton[edit]

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

I did not find sufficient coverage in secondary sources. Ringbang (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for his work on award winning documentaries ( such as Emmy Award) for major broadcasters such as BBC, and Disney, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the recipient of the Emmy. What are the secondary sources that lead you to conclude that he passes WP:BASIC? —Ringbang (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting this "Keep" cannot be taken closely to actually better satisfying any applicable notability as his exact article is still currently questionable thus deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that as well as WP:BASIC, he also passes the Creative notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I stand by the Delete vote implied by my nomination of the article. The references I found are almost entirely incidental mentions; I don't call that "significant coverage". Is this a case where a number of not-so-deep references amount to notability? I don't think so, because the closest that any of them comes to specifying Claxton's on-the-ground involvement is when Rich says that he interviewed subjects for Seeds of Despair. But Rich also says that Claxton won an Emmy, and my research does not corroborate that. Show me that he won the Emmy, and I'll rewrite the article instead of voting for deletion. —Ringbang (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing solidly convincing for independent notability and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I continued my search. Here is Nicholas Claxton's filmography at the British Film Institute, and here is the filmography for his production company. I searched for coverage of the following documentaries: Drug Raped (1998), The Search for Shangri-la (1998), Frontline (1994), Linda McCartney: Behind the Lens (1992), The Hidden Hand (1991), Do They Feel My Shadow? (1991), Edward Goldsmith: The Green Revolutionary (1990), Suffer the Children (1988), Promised Lands (1987), The Price of Progress (1987), and Seeds of Despair (1984).
  
  Although I did find some coverage (listed below), it rather seems like scrapings to me. Some of the films are significant—no doubt about it. The question is, as SwisterTwister put it, is it "solidly convincing" evidence of "independent notability"? Most of the sources below are snippets from Google Books. In some cases, there isn't enough context to determine the depth of the coverage. In all cases, the emphasis is on the film, not the filmmakers. Even in Bruce Rich's book, which of all the sources is the most generous to Claxton, this is the case. Some of the films look really intriguing; especially the vanguard coverage of the 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia. I still haven't found much that one can say about Claxton himself, and his involvement. Most of the material in the article right now is unsourced, and some of it is clearly promotional. It emphasizes his current career, which seems to be unnoteworthy. But even if I attempted to revise the article to refocus attention on his filmmaking career in the 1980s and '90s, I don't see much substance I could put into it from these sources (which are the best I could find). If the article is going to be more than a catalogue or summary of the films in which he had a greater hand, I think we need more and better sources than what I list here:
1. In his book Mortgaging the Earth, Bruce Rich writes about Claxton and his film The Price of Progress. Rich says that Claxton won an Emmy for Seeds of Despair, but I haven't found any sources that corroborate the claim that Claxton (as the film's producer) personally won the Emmy. When the film won a Peabody Award, the recipient was Central Independent Television. The 1986 Year Book and The Americana Annual say that CIT won the Emmy for Seeds of Despair. The Emmy search engine didn't return any hits. I also browsed through the documentary categories on Emmys.com for each year in which one of these films is meant to have won; again, no hits. Is there a more comprehensive resource for Emmy winners?
2. The Price of Progress is covered in The Latin American Times. It seems to have gotten a four-star rating in the Video Rating Guide for Libraries.
3. The Hidden Hand is discussed in Horizon, a Zimbabwean magazine.
4. A piece in New Statesman Society praises Do They Feel My Shadow? before its release.
5. Linda McCartney: Behind the Lens won a CableACE Award after it was rebroadcast in the United States. The film was on display in a retrospective of McCartney's photography.
6. Suffer the Children is mentioned in the magazine West Africa.
7. A writer for the Royal Geographical Society's magazine Geographical says "Claxton is perhaps best known for his Emmy Award-winning film Seeds of Despair".
  —Ringbang (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment firstly I'd like to commend your extensive search for sources and your intention to produce a high class article. Unfortunately I can't seem to magnify the Google book results but I trust your judgement However, I think the paragraphs about Claxton in the book "Mortgaging the Earth" and his lesser coverage in other RS such as The Times article allow WP:BASIC to be passed and a stubb class article to be maintained until better sources occurr that would allow for a high class article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think reducing the article to a stub with some select sources might be reasonable. The thing that stimies me about film and television producers is it's often unclear what their creative involvement was. When a film wins prestigious awards, that doesn't automatically confer notability to everyone involved with the film. In this self-written bio, he says he "made" Cry, Ethiopia, Cry, but his Wikipedia article says he was a "joint producer". What he actually did remains vague. —Ringbang (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think from this source [43] he was joint producer and as such when the film won the award it was received by both producers as is the case at the Oscars for best film. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those producer credits appear on all those Frontline programme info pages. It's not a list of the Emmy recipients. I've found no document that names the recipients. Ringbang (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There just isn't enough solid coverage about him to meet WP:GNG, or any of the other notability criteria. Article would also likely need serious rewriting in order to not qualify for CSD G11, IMHO. This article also suffers from far too much WP:OR for my tastes on top of the WP:PROMO aspects. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:12, 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 Speedy Delete. Already deleted by Materialscientist with creator blocked - summary:"Mass deletion of pages added by Theagenda60616". (non-admin closure) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar (stand up comedian)[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax, a simple copy/paste with dates changed from Kumar (Singaporean entertainer). ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 (hoax). Seems hoaxy in the first place, and things pretty well match the originating article. I can go a couple creative directions with this, but G3 seems to be the best fit. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:02, 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. Nomination withdrawn, somebody beat me to the punch with a Speedy G12. (non-admin closure) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAIL Alloy Steels Plant Durgapur[edit]

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

I can see where a steel maker with any number of plants would be notable, but a single plant, unto itself, does not strike me as being something that meets our general notability guidelines. It also seems a bit like it's written like an advert in a vaguely "coatrack" fashion. I'm not entirely sure this can be salvaged in its current state. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OG Ikonen[edit]

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

Unsourced (since 2010) BLP. One article in the external links appears to be the only coverage out there. The Suomi article has more sources but none are reliable/contain coverage apart from the one linked here. He apparently spent one week at #38 on the Finnish album chart ([44]), but given that Finland has a population of 5-6 million, I don't feel that is convincing enough on its own to justify having an article. Happy to reconsider if some decent coverage is identified. Michig (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark about population has no bearing in terms of the notability criteria that you invoke, which only says that:" Musicians ... may be notable if they meet ... the following criteria[:] Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" – regardless of what that country is. In fact, the remark only serves to enforce systemic bias. There are no special provisions for musicians coming from countries that are smaller than China. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, do you have any good arguments for why we should include him? 'May be notable' is the key word there. Not all national charts give the same indication of notability as the sales figures will vary enormously between countries. I would imagine that #38 on the Finnish album chart translates to a relatively small number of sales. After 6 years we have one source that mentions him, and that's about it, which isn't a great basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. Just pointing out a problematic argument in the nomination for others to consider. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and improve. Translating the Swedish article with Google Translate, apparently one album charted at #38 and another at #48. Meets WP:MUSBIO #2. SST flyer 08:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 05:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Only if this can be improved or else I would've said to delete and Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 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 speedy delete. CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pravish Enterprise[edit]

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

If pages like this are kept for days, then new page patrol is in a mess. Greek Legend (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not even an assertion of notability after this long. This is textbook A7; so tagged. And yeah, NPP is pretty yellow when I looked this evening. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:25, 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 speedy delete. by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article was tagged for speedy deletion as well as for AfD. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little guerrier[edit]

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

Notability (Unremarkable person) Music1201 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is entirely promotional in nature, and that is not what we are for. Speedy Delete on rationale of G11. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:13, 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 speedy delete. by Jimfbleak, multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria CSD A7, CSD G11). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Black (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this calls for Speedy Deletion under CSD sections A7 and G11. Music1201 (talk) 04:26, 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. A clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VYROX[edit]

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

Despite ambitious claims, a search reveals only advertising and no independent reliable sources providing notability. No refs provided perhaps because none exist? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced.Rathfelder (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find sources. Also, the article gives the impression that it is a multinational conglomerate. It has fewer than 50 employees on linkedin, which while dispositive, makes it seem unlikely that the article and current state of the company's growth are in agreement. Similarly, if it were a conglomerate, installing the alarm system in the friendster CEO's house would not be a highlight of 2014. Chris vLS (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is www.vyrox.com The founder linkedin is https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-leong-82398535 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeerock88 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither of those are anywhere close to being enough to demonstrate notability. In fact it would be expected that they would overinflate how notable it is. Like people don't exaggerate on their Linkedins. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna go delete on this one. If the company truly is notable, clean it up and change our minds. This is written like a promotion piece for the company, it is NOT suitable for WP in its current state. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is clear enough considering simply none of this article suggests convincingly keeping and, at that, with solidly better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrawos Bassous[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Forget English, even the Arabic name search has no result in news search. The sources in the articles are only video links. Greek Legend (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What about the sources provided in the article? For example, he seems to have been the subject of interviews by three different TV stations, which are linked. Pretty clearly satisfies GNG. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three are Youtube links and rest are non-RS videos. Videos are generally used as external links not as reliable source. There must be some article written about him in some reliable source. Articles that people can read not watch. Greek Legend (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first three video links take you directly to the websites of the news outlets, not Youtube. I don't know what you're talking about regarding Youtube. Even if they WERE bare Youtube links (which they're not), or if the underlying code was to a video hosted on Youtube (which plenty of reliable news outlets do), what needs to be considered is the original source. Youtube is just a webhost for videos, and it is irrelevant where a reliable news outlet (in this case, a Danish news outlet and a couple of Arabic-language ones) hosts their videos which are broadcast on their own website. If the video itself is of a news broadcast or a production of the news organization, then the source is the news organization, not Youtube, as Youtube did not produce it. It's also not required to hotlink sources, which eliminates any possible copyright infringement issue. This is unquestionably the greatest misunderstanding on Wikipedia regarding broadcast feed sourcing. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 14:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the sources provided in the article are from famous & well known TV stations and newspapers such as Norrköpings Tidningar in Sweden. Plus his Facebook page has more than 400K followers and got verified by the Facebook team as a public figure! . Mosheeko talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was reading this Wiki article after I saw Andrawos pictures on his Facebook page, he is a well known photographer in Sweden and has been broadcasted on the TV several times, c'mon - all the references are enough. There are not only videos, but there is also an article written in Swedish about him in the newspaper, you can find it at the first reference. Dudu talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.134.115 (talk) [reply]

Who is this user:Dudu? Greek Legend (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks plausibly like a sock given the shared tic with the missing open bracket on the talk link. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are suspicious new users in this AFD. Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to The Master: I agree that whether the sources are videos or not is irrelevant. My concern is that a couple of life-interest interviews are not enough to constitute "significant coverage". ~~WP:MUSICBIO explicitly disallows "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as non-trivial independent sources.~~ (struck, see below) The remaining sources are a photo of the subject on a magazine cover when he was 13 (the story itself is seemingly not about Bassous), another interview appearance also from his youth, and a paragraph on a slightly dodgy-looking website ([45]). Those aren't evidence of notability. The subject doesn't pass any of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE either. —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply re WP:MUSICBIO: I believe you are misreading the rule. It is referring to promotional and advertising material produced by the musician or his/her business interests. It isn't excluding interviews by significant third parties. On the contrary, being selected for interview by a TV channel or similar is obviously positive evidence of notability. Zero^talk 00:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I still don't think that two interviews with the same TV station and an interview with a local newspaper constitute significant coverage. I can't find much else independent on Google. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As photographer, he fails WP:CREATIVE. There is no any significant exhibition, he was part of, not new style and no reviews from peers. As for WP:GNG, a couple of interview is not enough. Many people got interviews. In case of TV programs, I'd like to see program about his art and not himself talking. Looks like the case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to recreate the article, when he get more coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is still not convincing of better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent (interviews don't count, being primary sources), reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews DO count and ARE secondary unless he interviewed himself and published or aired himself talking. Your understanding of what constitutes a primary source is completely wrong. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sourcing, clearly notable photographer. Should be kept per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CREATIVE. YouTube interviews doesn't advance notability. Notable photographers have extensive peer recognition and won major awards. This one hasn't. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion rationales that mention "Youtube interviews" are all invalid. The interviews were conducted, recorded and aired by 24NT (Norrköpings Tidningar) TV in Sweden, by Alfalstiniah TV in Pakistan, and a Palestinian TV network. The first two are hosted on the websites of the networks. The third reference points to the video on Youtube, which has NO BEARING on whether or not the original broadcast is considered a reliable source. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:32, 10 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 speedy keep. per speedy keep#1, the nominator has withdrawn his nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Murshidabad beheading[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable crime article. News search results are zero. Brief mention are in comments section of news articles are made by users with Disqus accounts. Greek Legend (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn By Nominator I didn't know that this was nominated two times before.Greek Legend (talk) 04:20, 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wayne Buza[edit]

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

Subject is a BLP with no notability. Person is a DR./College Professor, but no apparent coverage. The only references for the article are related websites. Article is an orphan, and the only reference to him is as an author of a reference within Stress in the aviation industry. Article history shows the majority of the edits were performed by the subject or family member (judging by the names of the editors). Quick internet search does not turn up anything to demonstrate noteability. MB (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete at best as this is clearly not acceptable and would need better improvements, of which I'm not being convinced will actually happen. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 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) 21:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Băluță[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't meet point 1 at all, and I would submit he doesn't meet point 2, either. Let's quickly run through the sources: not independent, irrelevant, blog post, kind of irrelevant (it's the resignation announcement of his predecessor), then we have basically a résumé from when he took office, and finally some routine coverage of his rather small-scale initiatives: hiring pensioners to garden and closing kiosks.

I looked around, and all coverage of the man seems to be on this level, no different from dozens of other Romanian mayors. (Just to be clear, he is not the Mayor of Bucharest, who is almost always notable, but one of the mayors of the Sectors of Bucharest, who very rarely are.) He wasn't even elected: he became interim mayor in November and will leave office in June, since he isn't running for a full term. So, taking all this into account, I would argue that there isn't enough significant coverage to render the subject notable, and the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems he is running for a full term, see this article. Razvan Socol (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I'd only looked at a list of PNL candidates by mistake. The point largely remains: not notable now, and not notable even if elected for a full term, unless he achieves notoriety for something more than shuttering kiosks.

If you look at the current sectoral mayors in Bucharest, Chiliman, Negoiță and Mănescu are notable - if only because all three of them have served in the Chamber of Deputies as well. Toader (who just replaced Onțanu), Croitoru (Vanghelie's successor) and Băluță are not - they're in office on an interim basis and haven't achieved the level of coverage granted to notable politicians. Do you think that's a fair assessment? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he's not yet notable enough (as Onțanu, Vanghelie and Piedone were). Razvan Socol (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is the mayor of a sub-district of a city. This is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillor and acting mayor in a single city district. NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 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. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Harrison (Musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable, doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Only potential claim I see in the article is being in a top 200 songs list, but that list is from some unknown wordpress.com blog that I don't think constitutes a reliable source. Performing alongside notable people or at notable festivals doesn't automatically confer notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: There seems to be an appeal to not delete the page on its talk page. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on this one on account of the WP:MUSICBIO problem. Couple of interviews with some smaller magazines it looks like. The band The Breakfast Club as noted does not seem to be notable unto itself. (Note, I found an unrelated bandBreakfast Club, but Jellybean broke it up about the time Mr. Harrison was born - ergo, unrelated, but seems worth mentioning.) Side notes: article created by a WP:SPA. To note on User:iagoQnsi's note above, the appeal on the talk page was created by a different SPA. I'm getting a feeling that this is a bit promotional. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable (does not meet basic notability guidelines). Music1201 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated the page with a more logical, chronological and non-promotional style, adding in several extra references. I think it just fulfils the criteria - the artist seems to have more coverage on podcasts than written media, which are difficult to source. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I spotted a Wordpress site and a local newspaper. You're right, podcasts are difficult. The sources you provide, regrettably, are insufficient. My !vote stands. =( --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is promotional and self indulgent— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.64.101 (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2016‎
Delete at best and wait until better coverage is available. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:59, 4 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.

Raja sumanthkiran[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete A7 by user:Anthony_Appleyard. (non-admin closure.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely non-notable person. Page created by his friend who took the picture. And administrators, please ask the user who patrolled this page, how he found this article notable? Thanks. Greek Legend (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, probably speedy A7 (though an assertion that he's signed to a film may counterindicate an A7). My go to for this is iMDB; where iMDB does not connote notability unto itself, I'd go so far to say that a lack of presence thereon connotes no notability whatsoever. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ...on second thought, gonna hedge on speedy delete as an A7. Looks like this was copied from somewhere else as it is, what's that ref for? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Space[edit]

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

Non-notable company. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GeoffreyT2000 is right. Quick search turned up no news, Google search turns up little, and the one link is a press release. I can't find notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing even minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 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 and salt--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daigacon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Obscure NN ephemeral anime convention with a long history of being deleted and then restored, often out of process and/or by SPAs. Attendance never broke 300, and other than listings on a convention aggregator website of a sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, the other two sources listed are (1) a broken link to the website of a local alternative arts monthly, and (2) a small county paper with a reported circulation of 6,000. A G-news search turned up only the Wikipedia article [46], and a general Google search turns up nothing beyond blogposts, press release listings, Flickr pages and the like; this fails both the GNG and WP:GEOSCOPE.

At this point, given the status as a defunct subject repeatedly held to be non-notable only to be recreated by a devoted SPA (who admitted that he was trying to "get my name put on something famous" [47]), I'm asking that it be both deleted and salted. Ravenswing 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something I note is that the other three AFDs happened a few years back, with the most recent being eight years and some small change ago. The temptation to G4 exists for me, but that's way too far back for me to consider it an option; moreover, I don't have the prior versions' history to make that call, it could very well be different. This said, I'm recommending deletion as it does not seem to meet our general notability guidelines. Of the links present, animecons.com seems more like a listing for cons in general (a place to find info on cons), and it looks like even new cons can list there; beyond this, one article link is dead, and the other is only a single news article from a secondary source talking about the con, leading me to consider potential issues with WP:LOCAL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Of note, for the user who was accused of SPA, it should be noted that the block happened in 2007; however the user has not been active since 2009, and the account was exclusively used for edits to the article here, its talk page, and his own talk page. So WP:DUCK on that one. Still holding back on a G4, though, as there have been additional edits. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt since the issue appears to be that the article keeps being recreated with no new evidence of notability. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Clearly a local con with limited audience attendance. Only held twice, and not in the last 6+ years so there isn't exactly much chance it will suddenly be revived. No legitimate reason for re-creation after 3 previous afd's.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a pinch of salt - Seriously, an attendance of only 300 for a single con? That's tiny. By comparison, the cons I've been to have had attendances of at least a few thousand per day (and each con was two or three days long) as opposed to the entire event. And coverage for this now-defunct con is also tiny. Given that it's been recreated many times for apparently spammy reasons, it should be time to salt it as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show it is a notable convention when attendance for local events like a high school musical or art/wine festivals easily exceed that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This has already proven twice to be a non notable convention, no need for it to keep popping up if nothing has changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as not only are there no convincing signs of keeping and improving, there's nothing to suggest there will ever be better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Just a Bond: A Bond with Israel[edit]

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

Not notable (book), lacks sufficient reliable sources, and written by single-topic Wikipedian

Page is at Not Just a Bond: A Bond with Israel. Pointless article; not notable. Single-topic Wikipedian. Page is full of weasels. Page is lacking diverse citations (although diverse citations wouldn't help it to become notable, since it's lacking citations specifically because it's not). Notified Wikipedian.

^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e

06:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete. What's not sufficient for consideration is the fact that Talpiot Press (the publisher) only has two publications under their belt, and that Worldcat only has one copy ANYWHERE in their attached databases (Library of Congress, which is quite normal for copyright procedure). Suspicion aroused in that there is no visible ISBN. Article indeed is a bit weasel flavored, so if you get rid of the weasels there wouldn't be much left. A bit of name dropping. Indeed, we have a single-purpose author, though they could be new, not sure. Most importantly, though, is that this fails to meet WP:GNG. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current content. The article makes no claim for the notability of this book as a book; no reviews are cited, it does not appear to have reached any bestseller lists, and no mention is made of any awards the book may have won. (See WP:NBOOK.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis The Tiger. FWIW, the editor who created the article registered in 2008, but has only edited seven articles, with the overwhelming majority of her/his edits on three articles related to Israel Bonds. (Two of the seven articles are redirects to bond-related articles, and one of the other articles is about a former Israel Bond executive.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis The Tiger. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could not find any reviews or other sources that would support a claim on notability. Chris vLS (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything notable and sourced into Israel Bonds. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There doesn't seem to be any coverage for this book, so we can't really guarantee how much of it is accurate. If the publisher was one that was a household name as far as the academic/scholarly world goes then we could have some wiggle room with that, but I can't really find much out there about this publisher. Because of that, I'm hesitant to add anything that would potentially be sourced only to this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doug Weller talk 04:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 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 speedy delete by Materialscientist, mass deletion of pages added by Theagenda60616 who is blocked for creating patent nonsense or other inappropriate pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a man a man? Kumar[edit]

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

Vandalism page, block the IP

^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e

06:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

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