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

The result was no consensus. Given this is the 2nd nomination, and this AfD has been relisted twice, I'm closing this as no consensus thus defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Raikes[edit]

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

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

There is no indication that the principal notability is nort derived from her husband. "Director, Creative Services, Marketing Communications" is director of a section of a section of a large organization, not a high level executive position. Awards from local journals are not reliable sources for notability--significant national level awards are needed. Wjhite House Champion for Change is not a significant award, just an opportunity for PR. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP last month and simply none of this suggests the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricia Raikes participants who have not commented here: Blythwood (talk · contribs), BabbaQ (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), Hmlarson (talk · contribs), Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs), and Postdlf (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why is this article up for deletion again less than 10 days after the first deletion discussion ended in keep? Meets WP:GNG criteria. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - from the time of the editathon when this entry was created to the present I have expressed concerns about the notability of this person's entry. The citations do not support notability. The description of her work, while commendable, is not establishing notability. With all due respect, the subject of entry as presented is not establishing notability well enough to kept. -- BrillLyle (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Hmlarson and [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricia Raikes]. In a sea of women famous only for their looks, finally one notable for brains. Time to drop the stick here. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG as is and subject is the co-founder of a foundation, and recognized for various endeavors. I am unsure why DGG is so upset about PR. If someone merits press attention, by definition he or she is notable (for whatever reason). An award that merits press attention is most likely important, too. Being recognized by the Executive Branch of the United States is actually pretty significant. Like Hmlarson, I am also dismayed that this article was relisted so quickly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:26, 4 May 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. Votes are equally split (2 keep and 2 delete), with reasonable arguments from both sides. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 23:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Lonely Resurrection[edit]

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

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

Neither source here rises to the level of satisfying criterion #1 of WP:NBOOK. (Prod was removed) —swpb^T 12:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, found some info gsearching hard rain, ie. Publishers Weekly review [1] - "this captivating follow-up. .. Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.", Examiner.com review (on wikiblacklist so no url)- "Hard Rain is a fantastic follow up novel to Rain Fall. Once again, Barry Eisler proves to be a master of suspense, thrilling his audience from start to finish. With an original and intriguing plot, complex characters, and flawless execution (no pun in intended) Hard Rain ranks among the best novels that this reviewer has ever had the pleasure of reading.", Library Journal audio review [2] - "Matching Silva for the mix of characterization and action, fast pacing, politics, international settings, hyper-competence, and the richness of background details, Eisler’s “John Rain” series is another set of books to suggest to fans of Silva’s Allon. .. the second book, Hard Rain, read by Dick Hill, might please fans of George Guidall more. Hill and Guidall share an ability to enhance suspense, create believable accents, and maintain a deliberate yet intense pace", a Gumshoe award nominee? - [3] - "At the end of Hard Rain, last year's Gumshoe Award-nominated second book in the series,", and a (New York Times?) bestseller? [4] - "and seven of his John Rain books on the New York Times Bestseller list.", [5] - "Translated into nearly twenty languages, Eisler’s John Rain books won the Barry and Mystery Ink Gumshoe Awards for Best Thriller of the Year; appear on multiple “Best of” lists, and have been optioned for film."? ps. if even half of the reviews on author's website here [6] is correct/track downable(!:)) either this is notable or at the very least a series article should be okay. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Examiner isn't usable as a RS on here, so we can't count that. January, PW, and LJ are all good and can be used as RS. I wouldn't really consider Wild River Review to be all that usable for establishing notability for this specific book since it talks about the series as a whole. In order to show notability for this specific entry you'd have to show where they discuss this particular book, especially if you're referencing the awards since it doesn't say which book won the awards, just that it won awards. (Sales numbers don't really count towards notability on here except for when it lands on a notable bestseller list.) Now while we can't use the author's site as a RS for the reviews, that does give us something to go with and many of them would be seen as a RS if we can find the review in question, since outlets like Black Belt, Sunday Telegraph, and the London Times are all fairly well respected. My inclination here is that this should be kept and cleaned up - it looks like the sources are out there, they just need to be found and added. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to author perhaps as this is still, all in all, questionable for its own notable article aside from the apparent reviews above. Delete if needed also, I'll say, but this is still certainly questionable for solid independent notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I tagged this as G12 when it was basically just a copy/pasted publisher's synopsis (e.g. from Amazon). Instead of letting it be deleted it was stripped down to a brief description with no sources that doesn't assert notability. Since then, the copyvio has been restored (in part), citing two poor sources. I still think this should['ve] be[en] speedied and redirected to Barry Eisler. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the copyright violation. If necessary, the copyright violation revisions can be revision deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Amazon lists several reviews of the book:

  From Publishers Weekly

  Rain Fall (2002), Eisler's first book about Japanese-American Vietnam vet John Rain, a hired assassin for government agencies in Tokyo and Washington, worked so well that the author wisely decided to keep all the elements intact in this captivating follow-up. Once again, the nightscape of Tokyo is painted in beautifully dark tones, scored to the live jazz of the clubs where Rain drinks from a menu of expensive single malt whiskeys. ... Eisler acknowledges the help of experts in many areas, but it's his own impressive literary skills that make his John Rain such a fascinating, touching and wholly believable character.
  
  "[A] relentlessly likeable protagonist." —San Francisco Chronicle
  
  "A James Bond-style secret agent cum hit man." —Booklist
  
  "A fascinating, touching and wholly believable character." —Publishers Weekly
  
  “... a superlative job... entertaining and suspenseful enough to keep you turning the pages as fast as your eyes can follow.” —Chicago Sun Times

  These sources, in addition to the ones mentioned by Coolabahapple and Tokyogirl79, demonstrate that the book passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria:

  A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

  Cunard (talk) 07:47, 8 May 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. Ridiculous. Katie^talk 22:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead[edit]

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

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

Few reliable sources. Many links are expired. The notability of the topic has to be established. See WP:notability' Docteur (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a troll RfD referencing the recent "erasure" of Radiohead's web presence. There are many reliable sources given as in-text citations and the vast majority of links are alive. 108.34.227.4 (talk) 22:16, 1 May 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 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kallan Holley[edit]

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

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Notable, has had lead roles in tv shows like PAW Patrol. http://www.moviefone.com/tv/paw-patrol/286599/credits/ , the upcoming Angry Birds film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985949/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 . And many more. Thursby16 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Thursby16 is the original writer of and primary contributor to the article in question. crh23 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has a main role in Paw Patrol, which is in its third season. She will also be in The Angry Birds Movie, though I'm not sure how big her role is. She has also won a young artist award, and was nominated for another. Finally, despite the articles short existence, it has already been viewed 137 times. JDDJS (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps and certainly Redirect' to Paw Patrol as this is still frankly questionable and the best two works are listed, too soon at best. I'm also no longer convinced by the Young Artist Awards to save articles. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a public relations platform on which people in any field of endeavour are entitled to have articles just because they exist — it takes reliable source coverage about her in media to earn her an article. If you have to rely on cast lists in cast-list directories like Moviefone or IMDb as your only "sources", however, then you have not gotten her over the bar — and no source present here is anything more than an IMDb-like cast-list directory. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her sourceability gets a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. The only sources that can be found are very routine things, nothing that shows notability in any way. When trying to scrape together sources for an article, if the best we can find is something like this, it's a good hint that it's not quite time to make such an article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minimal career (so far) and there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not noteworthy at this time. Kierzek (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately as she hasn't done very much yet (she is very young of course) there are very few sources that can be used to prove notability. She may well become very famous and we may see her name again in the future. ツStacey (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Keep' Adequate indicia of notability. I'm noticing a lot of bias against children's programming lately; these programs are themselves of adequate notability and while they are not as extensively covered in the mainstream press as "adult" films, one needs to look to the standard of the world of children's programming and assess within that level. Not everyone has to be Hannah Montana to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 4 May 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. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu[edit]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

is there a need for a list when only 1 person has held the post? secondly we have very few list of ambassador articles, so I question the need for a list of Consuls-General who are lower ranked diplomats. Also nominating :

• List of Consuls-General of Australia in Makassar

LibStar (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  17:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless a way to Merge and redirect is found. After looking through some consuls-general related pages, I have not found any pages to merge this one into Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Not-very-high-ranking or significant diplomatic posts. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both The scope of a Consulate General is definitely international, and it is certainly notable, this has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Further, if there are very few lists of ambassador articles, then that is a gap rather than a reason to keep other notable topics out. I would suggest the reason it is termed a 'list' for one person is for consistency with other similar articles. Here are some of the secondary sources covering the Chengdu Consulate General with significant depth:
  • Sainsbury, Michael (20 March 2012). "Australia to open new consulate in Chengdu". The Australian. News Corp Australia.
  • Wen, Philip (31 July 2013). "Mission opens door to vast interior". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media.
  • "Australian Consulate-General in Chengdu Opens Officially". Gochengdu.cn. 11 November 2014.
  • One year on: A message from Ms Nancy Gordon, the Consul-General in Chengdu, Australia China Connections Pty Ltd, archived from the original on 21 September 2014
  • Peng Chao (14 November 2015). "Australian visa application center opens in Chengdu". China Daily.

Clare. (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this coverage makes a list of Consuls-General notable. You've given coverage except one about the consulate not consul general. It's a separate discussion if the consulate is notable. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also how can you argue keep both when you've provided zero coverage for Makassar? LibStar (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you've also attempt to canvass someone into this discussion [7]. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the page about canvassing it says 'In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus,' which was what my aim was. Here's coverage for Makassar as requested:

• "Islands in focus: Australia opens consulate general in Makassar". The Jakarta Post. 23 March 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2016.
• Darmawan, Awang (22 March 2016). "Bishop to Inaugurate Australian Consulate-General in Makassar". Tempo Co.
• "Australia notifies VP about plan to open consulate general in Makassar". Antara News. 21 March 2016.
• Hajramurni, Andi (2 December 2015). "Australia to open consulate general in Makassar next year". The Jakarta Post.
• "Australia strengthens presence in Indonesia". Antara News. 25 March 2016.

Clare. (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is coverage about the office of the consulate not coverage where the person who is consul general is the subject LibStar (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing accusations about canvassing isn't helpful, especially given that I'm the author of the Chengdu page (I.E. an 'Editor who has made substantial edits to the topic or article') and I had no notification of its deletion until Clare notified me. I see the problem being solved by moving of these pages to a title that focuses on the consulate itself, rather than merely the office-holders, with a bit more info on its functions thrown in; say to Australian Consulate-General, Makassar/Chengdu? This has been done here.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both I agree with above. There is clear notability and modern diplomacy often means that most consuls-general have many delegated and policy roles that would normally be the sole responsibility of an ambassador. These posts fulfil this role. If deletion is approved, perhaps a single page listing various Australian consuls-general (like I did with the special interests abassadors and envoys) could be a possible compromise. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is presuming ambassadors are inherently notable which they are not. And consul generals even less so. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

consuls do not have sole responsibility of roles assigned to ambassadors unless no ambassador exists in that country. The ambassador always retains full responsibility. In this case, there are ambassadors in China and Indonesia. LibStar (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps a merge of certain material into the ambassador pages (i.e. for china and indonesia ambassadors) is a better compromise? Not notable enough for their own page, perhaps, but enough to warrant inclusions in a page dealing with the closest subject.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ludicrous lists given the number of entries and questionable notability of the individuals. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best, still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:LIST in so many ways. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seriously? Both of these roles have only been held by a single person, so what's the need for a list here? I agree that an article on this could eventually be useful, but it's WP:TOOSOON for that. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:33, 11 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Ajlouni[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutral. If article is to be believed, passes WP:JOURNALIST. Xxanthippe (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find sources that verifies he passes WP:JOURNALIST; I can't even find sources that makes him pass WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting the necessary notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article written with too much fluff. Seems to be written for self-promotion. Leaning towards delete, due to too much fluff, yet not much notability. Conspirasee1 (talk) 10:38, 24 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 Fabio Zerpa. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Hombres De Negro y los OVNI[edit]

Los Hombres De Negro y los OVNI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK JMHamo (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fabio Zerpa. It's difficult to source anything that references the paranormal, as they are rarely covered in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. That it's difficult to source anything pre-Internet or wasn't published in English goes without saying, and this book has all three things going against it. It's possible, albeit probably unlikely, that sources do exist out there off of the Internet. I didn't find anything in my searches, but if anyone can provide RS in the future I don't mind this being restored. I do note that Zerpa's article has some issues with notability, so that might need to be looked at as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as not seriously needing deletion but also not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources mentions this book. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:50, 3 May 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 00:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox 2.0[edit]

Inbox 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A Yahoo marketing code-name that never caught on as an actual term mentioned in a single New York Times 2007 article. --Michael White^T·C 04:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to Web 2.0 given that the term has been mentioned by independent sources. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 2.0 - sometimes I'll suggest these be redirected to the 2.0 page but there doesn't seem to be a need here. Artw (talk) 01:26, 2 May 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. Debate has been relisted three times and still there seems to be no consensus for any outcomes. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corina Abraham[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

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

This is more a coatrack to talk about Roe 8 than it is a BLP. Not notable. Abraham herself lacks coverage about her in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep referred to in the Australian Parliament as significant person(Whadjuk Noongar Custodian), involved in multiple events over multiple years, artist with works within a government collection. Currently challenging the WA Government in the States highest court which has potential flow on implications to Federal Government. Yes it has Roe 8 information but thats because Roe 8 is complex and significant, Abraham easily meets WP:N. There are also a number of article from Melville Herald from 2010 but those arent online I need to find time access their archives in person. and the Koori Mail in 2001[8]. This is what happens when AfD s get launched within an articles first 24 hours, if aint a prod give content creators time or even ask them a question as to the articles status I would have happily laid out that I have multiple sourcing for over 15 years that indicate this is a notable person, but given the coverage of Roe 8 (229,000 news articles so far [9]) and the fact she has lodged writs it seamed logical to push the article out so that people could find out more about this person before I had been able to organise access to the other sources. Gnangarra 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being referred to as "significant" in such a manner is meaningless in terms of notability. "artist with works within a government collection". Which one? City of Melville's art collection? Whoopty fuckin doo. Koori Mail? All is see is a photo with lots of people who attended a conference. Trivial coverage. Melville Herald? A local paper. Whats the nature of the coverage? Given the coverage of Roe 8 let's write an article on not Roe 8? She's not the issue, Roe 8 is. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability going back before Roe 8, passes WP:GNG quite comfortably. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the notability prior to Roe 8? How does she pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a writ submitter over a complex issue in the public eye in Perth, with earlierreporting Melville Herald and Koori Mail as stated by Gnangarra, it is just a short matter of time that extra refs will clearly further indicate notability of the person against the afd argument JarrahTree 10:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a writ submitter is not Inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but significantly trim "Corina Abraham#Opposition to Roe 8". See Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8 for my proposal. (For what it's worth I wrote the bulk of "Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8" yesterday, before the AfD, and only posted it today.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? WP:JUSTAVOTE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Corina Abraham is notable, and meets WP:GNG.
Your claim of "coatrack" is understandable, but I don't think it's correct. I do think that the Roe 8 section looks like a WP:SOAPBOX, but that's a surmountable problem and I've already proposed a solution. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution would solve the BLP1E issue but does nothing to address the lack of notability demonstrated by the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. notability passes requirements. VanEman (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, plenty of source coverage, including at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• comment suggest a WP:SNOW close before the nominator does something that should be avoided Gnangarra 00:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What, like accuse someone of racism? Oh, wait, it was you that did that. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt accuse you of being racist, I said your actions in nominating multiple Noongar Women had a point appearance given you had prod'd an article that I then converted to merge discussion that triggered your nominations and that you should also take care when doing such multiple nomination. Then you come along and respond to every person all of whom said keep, with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo Gnangarra 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've characterized my actions as being racial motivated. then you try to suppress discussion on an article you worked on. and your concerned that I wrote fuck? Why were you keen to suppress discussion? You say I replied to all with comments like Whoopty fuckin doo, please identify some such replies (note plural). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For those saying she passes GNG and that there is plenty of sources. Could you please be specific? What sources? What significant coverage outside of Roe 8? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If she has been notable for some time, why did it take until 2 April for an article to be created, an article whose entire lead is Corina Abraham is a Whadjuk Noongar elder who in 2016 challenged the Western Australian Government for failure in procedural fairness during its change to the Aboriginal Heritage status of the land to be impacted by the extension to Roe Highway known as Roe 8.? That seriously smacks of WP:BLP1E and supports the nom's argument that this is coatrack, as does the fact that there is nothing in the article establishing notability outside of the one event. Most of the article (and obviously all of the lead) speaks about opposition to Roe 8, with the woman's backstory added as an attempt to unsuccessfully establish notability. Looking at the 8 references, 6 are related to the Roe 8 issue. A 7th is an extract from a list of items in the City of Melville Art Collection. That alone does not generate notability. The 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article. Interesting to some, but not enough to establish notability. Sorry, no WP:SNOW close here. Notability needs to be adequately established, because it hasn't been yet. If notability can be properly established, I'd be happy to change my vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete definite case of WP:BLP1E. she is only getting coverage because of one issue. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy: I can appreciate the arguments about BLP1E. On the other hand, if Wikipedia existed in the 1980s we would've called Eddie Mabo a BLP1E back then too. So I suggest we move it to draft or user space and wait for further developments. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep subject is notable with plenty of refs. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having "plenty of refs" doesn't mean a subject is notable. Six of the refs refer to one event and the other two don't go anywhere near establishing notability. An article can have 1,000 references and still not meet GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well said aussie. Lots of coverage doesn't override WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Roe 8 and create that article, keeping a good summary of who this person is and her role in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree with this proposal I'm not sure how this would work. According to Perth Freight Link#Roe 8, Roe 8 is a 5km extension to the Roe Highway while Roe Highway says that Roe 8 is The Perth Freight Link, which is a bit circular. One would expect that if the extension goes ahead, Roe 8 would cease to exist as it would just become that extra bit of the Roe Highway, or the Perth Freight Link, or both. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article is questionable for better signs of solid independent notability and I'm not confident with any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 01:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in its current state. An article about Roe 8 may be notable. SSTflyer 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - outside the one issue (for which BLP1E would apply), searches turned up virtually no in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per extensive coverage in the sources. BLP1E does not apply per reasons including her artistic work in 1997, coverage in the Melville Herald (2010) and Koori Mail (2001) , all well before Roe 8 kicked off. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the sources is not even close to extensive, and they certainly weren't enough to result in an article until Roe 8 came along. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FeydHuxtable, could you look again at the Koori Mail source? Count the number of words of coverage dedicated to her then tell us how that qualifies as extensive. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. BLP1E does apply: her artistic work is trivial, her persona story of the hospitalization is wildly inappropriate content. It is not clear from the article whether she is the principal figure in the opposition, or the person in whose name the opposition is taking court action. I redirect to hte article section on the opposition to the road might be appropriate, at least now. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP1E over a relatively minor issue, no international coverage. Aeonx (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • World Highways has coverage[10] thats a UK based magazine it even mentions Corina Abraham in regards to activity in December 2015, the writ was lodged in March 2016. Then there is the International Business times based in New York[11](noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case), that has 13 million subscribers publishes in 10 countries and 7 languages Gnangarra 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

noting it doesnt mention Abrahams by name just the specifics of her case that's laughable. If a source can't even name the subject, that's not really a good source for establishing notability of someone. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

two sources the first mentions Abrahams, 3 months before the writs Gnangarra 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage in sources. It says "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail." The first source doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage and the second doesn't address the topic (Abraham) at all, let alone directly. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are enough sources. Articles related to rights of Indigenous people are often difficult to source due to being ignored by the press in general. Adequate indicia of notability and though concerns of BIO1E or recentism are apparently made in good faith, the topic passes. If someone wanted to create Roe 8 and merge this into it, I suppose that's not beyond the pale, but I don't think it is needed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established that the quantity of sources is irrelevant. Six of the 8 sources are related to the Roe 8/BLP1E issue. A 7th is an extract from a directory of items in an art collection and the 8th is a news piece about a major water leak in a hospital that used Abraham's story to pad out the article. WP:GNG requires significant coverage and that simply isn't there once you remove the BLP1E content. As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article. It is, after all, just opposition to a 5km road extension and these things happen all the time. A non-notable event can't be used to establish an individual's notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything to do with all of the Roe highway extension plans are linked with a particularly messy aspect of current Western Australian politics and is almost reported on daily basis in Perth, Western Australia in relation to the component parts of moving trucks from the eastern suburbs into Fremantle. Just because local editors are not full time producing potential on the subject is not necessarily a reflection on the impact of the issues being squeezed into an assumed 'non-notability' state JarrahTree 06:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Roe 8 not having a standalone article isn't because of notability, but because it would be a redundant content fork, given that Roe 8 is covered in the Perth Freight Link article. - Evad37 [talk] 08:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that I said "As a standalone subject, Roe 8 hasn't been notable enough to warrant creation of its own article." (emphasis added) If the opposition was great enough, and there were enough sources, there is nothing stopping a separate article being created. Roe 8 coverage in both Perth Freight Link an Roe Highway is pretty limited, but quite appropriate given my knowledge of the matter (my daughter is in Perth for nine months and she has been keeping me up to date) so I do agree it would be a redundant content fork to create a separate article and you can't claim an individual is notable because they oppose something that isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. -_AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roe 8 has been an ongoing issue for over twenty years, because someone related to you has lived in Perth for nine months doesnt make them an expert on Perth, or Roe 8. Gnangarra 11:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say, nor did I imply, that it did make them an expert. Please note that here in the east we have controversial road projects going on for a lot longer than 20 years. The Newcastle Inner City Bypass, for example, still isn't complete even after 50 years of planning and construction. That Roe 8 has been going on for so long makes Abraham's contribution even less significant. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable is fallacious reasoning, given that notability isn't the only thing that determines whether something has a standalone article. Per WP:N "This [meets GNG or subject-specific guideline + not excluded under WP:NOT] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. I haven't yet !voted, and am still on the fence about Corina Abraham, but arguments that "Foo isn't notable because it doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article" just don't make sense. There are plenty of sources for Roe 8 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and much room for expansion in the Perth Freight Link article, which is only start-class at the moment (we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs with WP:NODEADLINE, so not everything that could be written has been written). - Evad37 [talk] 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that because Roe 8 doesn't have an standalone article it therefore isn't notable - That's not what I said. You're concentrating far too much on the road and not the subject of this AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're the one who brought up Roe 8's notability in your comments of 06:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC). Is the notability or otherwise of Roe 8 really relevant here? - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant insofar as it is being used to establish Abraham's notability. If the notability of an event has not been demonstrated (this is different to an event actually being notable - an event can be notable without its notability being demonstrated - a lot of articles end up deleted because of this) can we use opposition to that apparently non-notable event to establish notability? Remember, while Roe 8 might be notable in WA, the rest of the world doesn't even know it exists, so to us it's not notable as it hasn't been demonstrated in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me a guideline or policy that says we need to consider notability as demonstrated in the article? Because as far as I am aware the usual interpretation, as stated in the WP:N guideline, is "Article content does not determine notability" and "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". In any case, there are sources from beyond WA for Roe 8 such as constructionindustrynews.net, Construction Index (UK), The Guardian Australia edition (1) (2), Shanghai Daily, Lexology.com and heaps of coverage from our national broadcaster ABC[12] (and I recall TV coverage being on ABC News 24, not just the local version of the ABC TV news bulletin) - Evad37 [talk] 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BLP!E doesnt apply because Corina Abrahams doesnt stem from the one event, she is also a Whadjuk Noongar Custodian, that makes her an authority on Noonagr traditions related to the region or equivalent to Chancellor at any Grey stone University, Supreme Court Justice, Queens Council or even a minister in any Government. Gnangarra 08:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a custodian, on its own, does not establish notability. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we ignore the Roe 8 matter, the subject just does not meet notability requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Only notable for one event, therefore should be placed under Roe Highway page. If not, then delete. If a person is only notable for one event, that person should not have their own wikipedia article, but instead be written in the event.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question The only significant coverage I can see is in relation to Roe 8. While others above have said her opposition to Roe 8 is a BLP1E, is it really one event, or one issue with multiple events? That is to say, there is coverage in relation to three things: the 2010 protest (Koori Mail), the letter read out in the senate in December 2015, and the Supreme Court writs (March 2016). While clearly related, is the whole lot one event, or is each thing a single event? - Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

also being part of the Aboriginal Heritage assessment that resulted in the site being listed, Roe 8 has a long history as protection of the area, has been already we have a court case from Roe 8 that has impact beyond Roe 8 on the WA Government run by the Save the Beelier Wetlands group which is who Corina spoke for in 2010 6 years before this event. Then the letter addressed to the Prime Minister read into Parliament which is while not unique isnt common either. Now we have her a plaintiff in Supreme Court writ(highest court in WA to commence an action) which also will have impact on some 1600 other sites that the current WA Government has removed from the heritage register. Corinas involvement is not BLP1E because it is significant, her impact reaches beyond the event to other areas and when you look at the FSH aspect her being written about even if you want to describe it as padding for the story wouldnt have occured without her already being of note as a Noongar custodian and public figure, oh and whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. Gnangarra 06:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"whats not covered in the Fiona Stanley Hospital article is all the controversy related to that, the flooding was just one symptom of the failures in the management that project which had materialised in the first 12 months of it being completed. " — That may be true, but it is completely irrelevant to Abraham's notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but it is relevent in the sense that Corina was affected by those events, it demostrates that she has a level of community recognition(notability) before/beyond the court case. Gnangarra 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being reported in the news might be relevant to her notability, but the "controversy ... failures in the management [of FSH] ..." have no bearing on her notability, which is why I said that they were irrelevant to this discussion.

Actually I'm not so sure that the article adds to her notability - she was mentioned because she was in surgery at the time of the FSH flood, not because she was a notable Indigenous elder or Roe 8 opponent. The FSH article does not mention anything of those; it merely describes her as "A 38-year-old woman". Wikipedia:Notability#Events says "routine news coverage ... is not significant coverage". I know that is about events, not people, but the principle is the same - the news article is about FSH, not about Corina Abraham. If the Wikipedia article is kept, then the FSH item and ref is worth keeping (it's related to her health issues, which are notable if she is, and also covered by another ref), but I'm not so sure it actually attests to her notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that we don't need to keep any of the FSH content or the ref. There is already a ref that supports the claim about her health problems. The FSH issue is just being used to pad the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're drifting off topic here. Perhaps we should defer discussion about the FSH content until if/after any decision to keep the article. (Similar to Talk:Corina Abraham#Proposal to trim Opposition to Roe 8. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Lots of refs does not equal notability, especially when most are about one event (and not the article subject). In addition, the article suffers from a disturbing amount of WP:OR and with the Roe 8 content removed, the article is mostly about her family and her medical issues (with references almost entirely from primary sources - interviews and her own writings). Chrisw80 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion which should be considered before turning this into a redlink. Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest something that is relevant to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BASIC. I see a lack of significant coverage and a large number of primary or non-independent sources. Ignoring the story about her time in hospital, which is obviously tangential to her notability, the only independent source specifically about Abraham is a profile piece in the Fremantle Herald, a free weekly community newspaper. The campaign against Roe 8 is certainly notable, and Abraham could (or even should) be mentioned in connection with it, but notability is not inherited. Obviously no prejudice against re-creation. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:27, 25 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 arguments in favor of inclusion cite existing guidelines including WP:NLIST and WP:PILLAR, Wikipedia does operate as almanac. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by sunshine duration[edit]

List of cities by sunshine duration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and this list will never be completed anytime soon. Most of the data seems to have been copied from their respective Wikipedia articles. Some places, such as parts of southern Chile and the Aleutian Islands do not have sunshine data available, and the amount of sunshine hours received varies greatly from year to year. Also, where are some of the world's sunniest places in that list? Websites gathering sunshine information may be unreliable as well. One city's monthly sunshine information being available on a website may be different on another website. The article may have a problem similar to that of List of places with fewer than ten residents, which was deleted because it was also an indiscriminate and never to be completed list of places with no more than nine people. (edited) Eyesnore 12:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This curious list of information appears to have no notability in secondary sources as an overall list topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense – see the BBC, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed the BBC source - when I looked at the article, I saw what I thought were all primary sources. Still one source, or even two, three or four, don't actually constitute 'significant coverage' in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sunshine is a standard weather measurement which is collected and collated by organisations such as the UN and WMO. Secondary sources report the sunniest cities in the US and the world using this data. The list therefore passes WP:LISTN easily. If there's no entry for isolated places like the Aleutian Islands then that's reasonable because there are no cities there. I am writing this in London which is certainly a city but, as usual, there's an overcast and so the sun is not shining :( Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrew Davidson: Not every large city in the list is present, many of them are missing and I will still mark the list as a dynamic list. Eyesnore 15:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as interesting and informative. Long-term averages, like average duration over the last n Januaries, are better and editors should be encouraged to improve the page in this way. Removing the page because it can be improved isn't much of an argument and seems counter to the spirit of Wikipedia.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator, very WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If one wanted to see each cities average sunshine duration they could go to the respective article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete somewhat reluctantly. A lot of work has gone into it, even if semiautomated. Seems to be exact duplicate of data from individual city articles weather sections? So the data is by definition notable in itself. By the way, cannot be compared to 'less than 10 inhabitants'. Cities do always have sunshine of some amount so not arbitrary, although the definition of city could be. The next article will be List of cities by average high temperature and the next will be . . . Ideally all the tabulated weather data for each city should be moved over to wikidata and the tables for each city populated from there, and then this article cold be automatically generated and will always be as complete as there are in existence articles for places with weather data (and this I would strongly support) . . . but as it stands this would take a team of editors doing nothing but keeping it up to date and in synch with the city/town/village articles. The top 10 or top 20 sunshine cities cold be useful (section in another article about city livability perhaps), but a list of all cities/towns/villages manually maintained (and it will need to be kept current if it has any value) will soak up far more wikitime than its encyclopedic value is worth. Aoziwe (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps as I also think this is an interesting subject but am questionable about solidity therefore I suggest deleting for now. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Such lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia like WP, because, according to our most basic principles, WP:PILLARS, one of our functions is to have much of the contents of an almanac. Such lists have been traditional almanac territory. They are lists for which people might very reasonably comes here; they are not indiscriminate: they cover the largest cities in each country, and there is no reason they cannot be complete for them, since authoritative data for the table is very easily available . As for other lists by climate indicators, I might well support them also: they're equally within our scope. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly the topic is notable, since there are multiple sources discussing the sunniest cities in the United States and the World. Also, as DGG noted, meteorological data is permitted as Wikipedia also functions as an almanac. If there is problem with list size, that can be remedied by setting a bar for including a city in the list. Possible criteria could be "only cities with population greater than 250,000", "only the ten largest cities per country", "only one city per quadrangle of width one degree longitude and height of one degree latitude", and so on. But that is for the editors to discuss on the list's talk page: AfD is not for cleanup. Altamel (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very important list as it give the idea of sunlight given in a particular place. I agree with Altamel that some modifications should be made in order to give this list a limit. A bar should be kept like "only the capital cities" or limit it to ten cities in one grid (15 degrees longitude x 15 degrees latitude). The former list would give a limit of no more than 196 cities and the latter would give a maximum of only 2880 cities. (Also since land is there on only 30% of the earth the list would get further restricted to 960) Furthermore, I think that the world "cities" should be replaced by "places" as there are many "places" on the earth's surface which have interesting sunshine data but are not qualified to be called "cities". Arpit.arun.mishra (talk) 10:25, 2 May 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 InnerSPACE. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceNews (television show)[edit]

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

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

Article is barely a stub and has had the ref and notable tags since 2009. A minor news segment on a Canadian network that ended over 10 years ago. Unlikely article will/can ever be expanded due to lack of coverage. Note that most hits are to SpaceNews, a current print/web magazine. MB (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged it into InnerSPACE, its successor. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the redirect has been removed please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Please note guidelines under WP:EDITATAFD. Thank You Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as because this current article itself is still questionable for WP:TVSHOW and WP:GNG, there's nothing else to suggest keeping this by itself, best connected to its successor likely. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per Zanimum CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:26, 2 May 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 Night Court#Supporting players. No point to drag this out any longer (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joleen Lutz[edit]

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

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

Delete: thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Night Court#Supporting players as nothing convinces better independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the los angeles times reference in the article is a good reliable source for her nightcourt significant role. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article meets WP:GNG criteria. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Night Court#Supporting players: Article is pretty stubby and indicia of notability not strong. If there is more material on her later, then the redirect could be made back into an article. I agree with SwisterTwister on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. did you actually look at the sources? Only 2 of them actually cover her as the subject and one of them is IMDB . LibStar (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, just not noteworthy as stand-alone article; redirect to Night Court article. Kierzek (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NACTOR . other achievements do not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Charles Mildin[edit]

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

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

Apparently this article is being questioned as likely being fabricated (as noted at my talk page) and frankly my searches are simply finding some links at browsers including from news sources so I would not be surprised if it is fabricated as I should also mention the currently listed source is questionable anyway. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A VOTE TO DELETE: The ERBZINE article listed as the sole reference for this article includes a disclaimer or two at the bottom of it stating that the alleged newspaper accounts of Mildin's life in the jungle, etc., simply do not exist. It is a hoax, apparently, and there is no proof that Burroughs was aware of him, regardless. Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a more detailed search on the web just now, I have discovered this article (view front page and Pg. 6 for the full story) where a historian of Streatham pointed out that the title "Earl of Streatham" does not exist!

If the 1959 Journal publication turned out to be hoax, then it raises questions as to who the real-life Tarzan-like character really was based-upon. Or was the author Edgar Rice Burroughs merely using his pure imagination (similar to Jule Verne's entirely fictional 20,000 leagues in the sea?) to fabricate an idealised utopian scenario. Anyway it seems as if one author purports to know the origin of the Tarzan story? --Ælfwyn5 (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is attributed as a hoax at the very beginning. The first sentence of this article reads "Warning: the following story is a hoax, created by Llewellan Jones's article. No William Mildin is attested in contemporary sources, and no Earl of Streatham ever existed." Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • That hoax attribution was added well after it was pointed out to the admins that the subject of the article did not exist. Sir Rhosis (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE -- An obvious hoax. Sir Rhosis (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clearly a hoax. Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 1 May 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 Color wheel theory of love. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love styles[edit]

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

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

This article is not about the very wide variety of topics that I, in common I assume with most of us, I might consider "love styles> Rather, it's the terminology used in one particular [Color Wheel Theory of Love]], the metaphor used by a single psychologist. As there was no agreement to merge some of this pop-psychology into the more comprehensive article Color wheel theory of love. I bring it here, since as used here it's essentially promotion for his book, or his metaphors. I don't want to rule out the possibility that perhaps its the article on Color wheel theory of love that should be deleted, along with the mentions of it here. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect is acceptable for me. Delete as I myself reviewed it at NPP and thought it was questionable with the current contents being questionable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per SwisterTwister and nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Color wheel theory of love. I see User:Wes.turner was the only one who objected to the merger, but his argument it being "inappropriate" is unclear to me. Ping me if something more extensive is presented here, please. Otherwise merger is the only way out of outright deletion I see here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, ping, another merge option below czar 23:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, possibly to Greek words for love or other pages suggested above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The proposed target article [[[Color wheel theory of love]] has this information pretty much verbatim, which I am assuming was the result of Talk:Love styles#Merge with Color wheel theory of love. It can't be deleted now as this articles history is needed for attribution. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 8 May 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 Ralph Underwager‎. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Psychological Therapies[edit]

Institute for Psychological Therapies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Off-handed mention in one book? Not good enough for Wikipedia notability. jps (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG . Complete lack of coverage. Just 2 gnews hits. Article sources include primary sources. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, or redirect to Ralph Underwager‎ the founder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. 2 of 3 sources cited in the article are primary. The 3rd is a book from a non-notable publisher. The 2 gnews hits that OP mentioned aren't reliable. Other than that one book, I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources independent of the subject. PermStrump(talk) 05:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ralph Underwager‎, which seems to have already been done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as this seems best connected to that and there's nothing to actually suggest better noticeable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not noteworthy as stand-alone article. Kierzek (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Ralph Underwager. This institution has received some attention in WP:RS, but not a lot, and most of that which it has received is difficult to distinguish from attention given to its staff. I think it has enough notability to be discussed in another article, but maybe not enough for its own article. So I'd redirect to its founder Ralph Underwager for now, merge whatever of the content is relevant into that article. Article can always be spun out again if there is enough standalone WP:RS content found on this institution at some point in the future. SJK (talk) 13:15, 8 May 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 per WP:SNOW. There are just enough arguments made to make this a clean snow. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dimension Travel Trilogy: A Three Part Science Fiction And Fantasy Novel[edit]

The Dimension Travel Trilogy: A Three Part Science Fiction And Fantasy Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod tag has been removed by the article's author without justification so I'm taking it to slow-deletion... Currently this is a non-notable book by a non-notable author. I have no objection to re-creating the article if the book (or its author) starts getting some attention by reliable third-party sources. I should also mention that there's a likely conflict of interest since the author of the book and the article are both named Joseph Salvatore Pidoriano. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly a non-notable, self-published book. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The overall pages by the editor are fairly promotional, so this looks like it was one part of an attempt to promote the book on Wikipedia. However I'm not sure if this one would be considered promotional enough to speedy. There's really no chance of this surviving AfD, considering that it's a self-published book that doesn't seem to even have a presence in the book blogosphere. We couldn't use the blogs anyway, but the lack of even blog sources is fairly telling. If no one minds, I think I may close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - shameless and unsalvageable advertising by author of a non-notable, self-published work. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. No references, book is self-published, no reviews. Fails all tests. I did a search and ABEbooks had one seller that was selling it as "printed on demand". Another page turned up the fact that the author is 19 and this is his first book. Chutzpah- if nothing else. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:07, 2 May 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. Votes and arguments roughly split. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parker McGee[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this entry fail WP:MUSBIO exactly? According to "Criteria for composers and lyricists", a composer may be notable if they have; "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." England Dan and John Ford Coley's "I'd Really Love To See You Tonight" charted in 1976 on Billboard's Year-End Hot 100 for that year, at the #21 position.

Your assertion that this composer's entry also fails WP:ANYBIO, seems to also be negated, based upon the above information. (This composer's work IS part of the enduring historical record of 1970's popular music.) As for the WP:BIO concern, this can easily be overcome through diligent research and editing by any interested contributor. Edit Centric ^talk 00:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It may be able to be fixed, but it's very poorly sourced and promotional. I could blank most of the article per WP:BLP. I'm not saying the topic shouldn't have an article, but as it stands, it just doesn't cut it. Also see WP:TNT. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 13:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rewrite. Blatant copyright violations, with some of the article text copied straight from Billboard: "McGee's first break came in 1967, when a group he was playing in won a Mississippi Battle of the Bands competition." My 'keep' vote is because McGee had an in-depth write-up in Billboard, a biography on AllMusic, and he co-wrote a couple of major hit songs. He satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:MUSBIO. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Binksternet: I believe I had checked for this, but didn't find anything. That said, if it does contain extensive copyright violations, it should be speedily deleted under CSD G12. Even if it doesn't, it should probably be deleted anyway, just for the sake of starting over. It does, after all, contain copyvios and is promotional, so it would practically need to be entirely rewritten anyway. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The copyvio was blatant but not extensive. I don't think we need to explode the current article to rewrite it. If you see any more copyvio just rewrite those parts. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better and the entire article is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. he is notable, as he wrote a song in the top 100 chart. This meets notability, just lots of issues. See WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finrod Felagund[edit]

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

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major figure in the Tolkien legendarium, and the subject of significant critical attention. Note the dozens of Google Scholar hits and such commentary in (non-fannish) academic books like this one [13], to say nothing of popular commentary. No doubt there's Tolkien cruft that might be pruned, but this is an example of an article on a significant character that merits expansion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as it's still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "parent" is already notable. There is more than enough material here to justify a split off the parent, even ignoring the other points raised. Where exactly would you redirect this? -- RM 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF. While it is conceivable judging from the above that a policy-compliant article could be written, as it is the article would need a total rewrite from an out-of-universe perspective and can therefore be safely deleted.  Sandstein  16:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's simply not accurate. Noting, for example, Tolkien's evolution of the character over the course of his writing isn't "in-universe", (even though the treatment in the existing text is cursory) and there are full-length books published by university presses on the subject of the development of Tolkien's legendarium (e.g., Arda Reconstructed [14]); academic journals (eg, Tolkien Studies [15]), all sorts of popular culture analysis, and so on. An in-universe treatment is necessary for a framework; the fact that the article hasn't progressed very much beyond that yet hardly weighs on the notability of the subject. The existence of the relevant body of academic criticism is more than sufficient to demonstrate notability, as it is in general for most authors, just as it is for subjects like inaccessible cardinals, the Banach-Tarski paradox, and the Whitney embedding theorem, whose articles similarly show no real-world impact. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiz Lee, where a far less adequate article was kept in anticipation of a policy-compliant text, even though no significant steps were then or have been since taken to do so. Academic analysis demonstrates notability; the fact that the relevant sources are paywalled, print-only, or otherwise difficult to access doesn't justify making existing coverage even worse. If you'd like to drop about $1000 US to but me Arda Reconstucted, a run of Tolkien Studies, and a few other key references, you could expect to see some article expansion in the near future . . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a proper article about this topic can probably be written. But this is not it. It's fancruft that can be deleted, until such time as somebody competent recreates the article. Publishing articles that are 95% fanwankery is detrimental to Wikipedia's overall quality.  Sandstein  20:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article be improved if it is deleted? That is why there are notability guidelines, which this clearly meets, and content guidelines. Citing content guidelines is rarely a valid reason to delete. Even if the article has to be changed a one line stub to fix content guidelines, this still does not change the fact that it is notable. And who cares that the quality of total articles is lowered by some very small amount? It's a work in progress, let it do its thing. -- RM 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Also, WP:FANCRUFT is not a valid deletion reason. The fact that an article needs improvement is not a deletion reason. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the subject was notable enough before, I have expanded the article with real-world perspectives from reliable sources. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:VMS Mosaic. --Fixuture (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, article has good references backing notability, thanks to De728631, is not "95% fanwankery", am shocked by this sort of comment/language from an apparently jaded administrator? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 6 May 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. Adequate policy-based rationals for deletion have nor been refuted by any of the "keep" arguments. Clear consensus to delete. No prejudice against redirecting or merging. Will userfy upon request. Swarm ♠ 00:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caranthir[edit]

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

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability independent from the works of fiction in which it appears. AadaamS (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While it's true that the article is currently lacking in independent reliable sources, no significant Tolkien character is going to be ignored in the many words that have been written about his fictional world, and indeed, clicking on the links above, one does find book and journal citations etc. Whether it is judged to be enough for notability is a different matter, but to say that there are no reliable sources is not quite correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've also linked to this Afd from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. And I would ask any editors coming to this Afd from that project to please respect WP:Notability, if they are unfamiliar with deletion discussions. The nominator is quite right that in-universe fictional importance is not enough: we need external sources to demonstrate independent notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have structured the article and added a number of reliable secondary sources. But if you still think the content is not suited for a standalone article, it should be merged to List of Middle-earth Elves. De728631 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Nothing currently within the article shows that the character is independently notable. Brief mention on the above list seems to be all the topic requires. There are certainly plenty of notable Tolkien topics, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. TTN (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GScholar hits show non-trivial attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage. -- RM 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related reasons here. WP:WAF, a content guideline, is not a valid reason for deletion. If it still isn't improved in ten or fifteen years, we can redirect. -- RM 11:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF. If there is nothing to say about a fictional character except summarizing the works they appear in, they are better covered in fan wikis, but an encyclopedia must approach topics from a real-world perspective.  Sandstein  16:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Middle-earth Elves. De728631's restructuring and referencing of secondary reliable sources shows verifiability of basic facts concerning this fictional character. In my opinion there is not enough depth to pass notability thresholds, but there is enough to warrant merging to a list of middle earth elves. --Mark viking (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RM and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RM. --Fixuture (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Going about this the wrong way. Needs to be justified from the independent sources and not vice versa. Merge it to the list of elves and it can always spin-out summary style if warranted by the sources, and there isn't enough material to warrant that split as of now. czar 23:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong merge, per Czar's comment above. Additionally, per WP:NOTINHERITED, Caranthir needs coverage independent of J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A few problems with this:

  • You've cited an essay, not a policy or guideline. Can be useful, but by itself, not so much.
  • The essay you cite explicitly exempts books from the rule. This makes complete sense: If the book is notable, then the contents of said book are notable, to varying degrees. Not every tree in the book need be notable, but the threshold for notability is much lower than an independent subject. This is not like a famous person buying a restaurant (WP:INHERITORG).
  • AfD is not the place to debate content guidelines. Whether this be summary style, or something else, is beside the point and has no bearing on notability. Sort it out on the talk page of the article among those who are interested in such things. Content guidelines should determine the extent and location of information on a subject. Maybe the decision is ultimately to merge content, but that is not appropriate to decide here.

  -- RM 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - per Mark Viking. Clearly a minor character in the history, and the extent of information available could be and should be summed up in one paragraph in the list of elves. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 13 May 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curufin[edit]

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

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the most applicable character list. The article does not currently possess the means of establishing itself as a stand-alone topic. TTN (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GScholar hits show significant attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. -- RM 13:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Opinions above only assert the existence of relevant sources, but do not cite them, and therefore should be discounted. No indication in the article of the sort of third-party coverage required for notability. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF, another indication of non-notability.  Sandstein  16:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to House of Finwë#House of Fëanor or perhaps to List of Middle-earth Elves. Basic facts of this character are obviously verifiable in primary and secondary refs, so per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, deletion is inappropriate if there is a viable target. House of Finwë#House of Fëanor seems the best, as it gives the fictional family context. --Mark viking (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Fixuture (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plethora of sources available on both Books and Scholar (those were the only 2 I checked). Here are some of those from simply the first page of each: this; this; this; this; this; this; this; and this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 9 May 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. There are legitimate points being made here, and disagreement over whether the content should be kept, pruned, merged or deleted. But without any consensus for deletion, I will close this now and leave further discussion about pruning or merging to the talk page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maglor[edit]

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

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

This fictional has no WP:RS reliable sources which WP:V verifies its general notability per the WP:GNG and WP:NFICT. Thus this subject is an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. This character only has in-universe notability as no sources support real-world notability. AadaamS (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GScholar hits show significant attention to this character, as do GBook hits and popular commentary. There may be Tolkien cruft in need of pruning, but this cookie-cutter nomination with evidence of compliance with WP:BEFORE falls far, far short of making a credible case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. No compelling reason not to keep. -- RM 13:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Opinions above only assert the existence of relevant sources, but do not cite them, and therefore should be discounted. No indication in the article of the sort of third-party coverage required for notability. Contains only in-universe content, contrary to WP:WAF, another indication of non-notability.  Sandstein  16:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to House of Finwë#House of Fëanor or perhaps to List of Middle-earth Elves. As with Curufin, basic facts of this character are obviously verifiable in primary and secondary refs, so per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, deletion is inappropriate if there is a viable target. House of Finwë#House of Fëanor seems the best, as it gives the fictional family context. --Mark viking (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Without references asserting real world notability, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. Considering that both Maglor and Maedhros play an important role in the fate of the Silmarils, this article could certainly be improved from its current state. There are plenty of non-Internet sources available discussing Tolkein's work in scholarly fashion. I say "weak", however, because I'm not sure if the sons of Fëanor are really that notable independently. clpo13_(talk) 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Fixuture (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plethora of sources available on both Books and Scholar (those were the only 2 I checked). Here are some: this; this; this; this; this; and this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Mark Viking. Not every piece of information needs its own article. MSJapan (talk) 17:21, 13 May 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 Hairspray (1988 film). MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Ann Powers[edit]

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

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Besides, Powers has appeared in only one film to date. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing suggesting solid independent notability, there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hairspray (1988 film). On another note-I now want to know what happened to this person! Are they alive? (probably, but its just one of those things!) Wgolf (talk) 02:54, 24 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 00:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The White Noise[edit]

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

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

Article about a two year old musical group. Fails WP:BAND for lack of available independent sources. - MrX 14:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete as I'm not finding convincingly better, delete until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References are mostly user contributed sites, social media, or promotional. The sole reference that doesn't fall into that category, New Noise Magazine, is hard to judge on merit. While it gets national distribution in music stores and the like, it seems somewhat "niche" and, to my mind, a single review in such a publication doesn't translate into significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Fearless Records (as The White Noise's record label) is a reliable source and the biographies on Reverb Nation and Pure Volume were both written by the band. Additionally I have since added sources to Alternative Press (which connotes media coverage as one of the most popular music magazines) and itunes (which I believe is a reliable source). Issan_Sumisu (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (GMT)

Note to Issan_Sumisu, as the author of the article you are entitled to an explanation of why this is failing. It's not a question of how reliable the source is. The problem is that a bio on the band's label is promotional. The write up in Alternative Press is a simple regurgitation of a press announcement from the band (or its label?). And being on iTunes does not convey notability. Add a dozen more similar references and it still wouldn't meet notability if the tone is promotional or self serving. The sources need to be independent of the band's promotional interest. So far only one (New Noise Magazine) meets the criteria but, as stated above, doesn't add up to much. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only source I could find was [16], which is way too thin to be a source. Fails GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:32, 2 May 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 Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities in Sheboygan County[edit]

List of largest cities in Sheboygan County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough content to justify a split from Sheboygan County as a Stand Alone List. "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Royalbroil 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Far too specific. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sheboygan County, Wisconsin or just delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as said above, maybe include some sort of cities by pop. list into that article Sheepythemouse (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge table to Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, something that could have been done through normal editing and discussion (neither of which were attempted) rather than wasting time at AFD. Also note that these are the largest municipalities; only three are "cities". We can't use "city" as a generic term in a jurisdiction that uses it to refer to a particular class of incorporated community, as I believe all U.S. states do. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ducks seem to be quacking to me that the creator, Listmaker319 (talk · contribs) is just a sock of Jackosn7775 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JacksonKonrad4318 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was already at AfD and later blocked for Sheboygan Falls Metro. There are three cities in the county and the county template has this well in hand as far as listing them; there's no point merging anything easily covered in a template. Nate • (chatter) 03:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect as this seems enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge table to Sheboygan County, Wisconsin.AuribusTeneoLupum (talk) 00:09, 3 May 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. Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression olympics[edit]

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

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

I am not sure if this should be deleted or not, however I still nominate it b/c: a) It is presented using a lot of scientific speech without including scientific sources b) It reads like a political essay, c) sources include YouTube and tumblr pages and d) the user who created this article has also created Special snowflake, which is also up for deletion. Laber□^T 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it violates WP:ESSAY and no evidence has been given that it is a widely used phrase. The former by itself would be excusable as AFD is not cleanup but the latter pushes me towards the delete side. Compared to "special snowflake" which has widespread use in many sources and contexts, this does not. Smartyllama (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and WP:ESSAY. I agree with Smartyllama's logic ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've removed the unreferenced POV essay and added a referenced explanation from "Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire". This is a political science topic. It relates to identity politics and what is called "intersectionality". See also: "Triple oppression" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticla rutila (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not sure about the relevance, but at least now it won't need a rewrite if it is kept. WP:ESSAY no longer applies. --Laber□^T 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with Anticla rutila's fixes it does not read like essay anymore, and topic seems to have sufficient notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure that the reasons given for deletion are particularly valid. AfD is not cleanup, and at any rate the article appears to have been improved somewhat since nomination. Nor is infrequency of use necessarily the same as non-notability: probably "subaltern studies" is not a widely used phrase, but it is notable. Potentially one source which isn't in the current article is this from the Washington Post. There's also this book (if the Gbooks link doesn't work, it's Hancock 2011, Solidarity Politics for Millenials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics); and potentially this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those leads Cecil, I read through each one. I introduced an observation from Ange-Marie Hancock's book. Anticla rutila (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should definitely be improved; at the moment both knowyourmeme.com and Geek Feminism Wiki are explaining the concept much better than this article. That said, there can be no doubt that "oppression olympics" is by now a well-established term among activists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences. 58,000 Google hits, including 374 in Google Scholar and 672 in Google Books should put notability beyond reasonable doubt. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft instead if needed as this is still questionable and would be best put aside for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; the article in its current form isn't terribly well written, but can be improved. Moreover, we clearly have reliable references testifying to the existence of this concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has been rewritten, is using scholarly sources, and the concept is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 9 May 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 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Chinatown USA[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, unsourced The Banner talk 17:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Original research and not notable----Richie Campbell (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – See WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. The topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Northamerica1000 CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:35, 2 May 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. Northamerica1000's comments here and edits to the article provide sufficient evidence of notability. The primary concerns raised by those advocating deletion can be addressed through the editorial process. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naktuinbouw[edit]

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

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

selfpromo / promo / not sourced conform WP:RS / doubtful notability The Banner talk 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing at all suggesting the necessary better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – See WP:NEXIST, and check out available literature using the Google Scholar and other links in the Find sources template atop this discussion, and also the literature I have listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep and copy edit (some of which I have begun). The organization passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. See also WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with NA that the organization may pass WP:ORGDEPTH, but I would say delete as per WP:DEL4. From its opening statement "centre for expertise", to its closing section: "Fascinating facts", it is simply a promotional brochure for the organization. I think this is a clear case of WP:TNT. If someone wants to take it on as a project to develop, I would have no issue with it being draftified/userfied. But we really shouldn't be having promo brochures on Wikipedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]