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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Safwan Ahmedmia[edit]

Safwan Ahmedmia (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)

Just having a lot of webviews does not mean one meets the WP:GNG. Sources on page seem to only mention him incidentally or just duplicate his content. Not significant coverage at all. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft of this was declined multiple times for the same reason and then just copy pasted over.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per Patar knight and Peter Rehse. Quis separabit? 14:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly non-notable, no proper sources or attempts to explain how the subject is notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as still nothing solidly convincing for a solidly notable article for now, aside from the expected media. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Ismael[edit]

Jed Ismael (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)

Main claim to fame seems to the Instagram porn thing which was discovered by the subject. Coverage of this event don't seem to push him over WP:GNG and neither do any sources found by a Google search. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

trusted references such as the daily star are mentioned, with over 55 news website from around the globe mentioning the same issue and the same blogger. it has enough references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.90.183 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Daily Star being a tabloid, if Ismael is only known for this one thing, the article should just redirect to Instagram#Hidden pornography. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the Instagram page was added by the same user who created the disputed page in question. i.e. Special:Contributions/Lily9980 — Christopher.akiki (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's also known for hacking major Lebanese companies and banks live on tv, which were references by the corresponding articles written in arabic178.135.242.154 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, and there are further BLP concerns. Better he be mentioned in the Instagram article per Patar knight above. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing for solid independent notability, nothing convincing this can be acceptable aside from the apparent event. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, certainly a case of WP:BLP1E as mentioned by Fosse8. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Poison[edit]

Terry Poison (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)

Sources in article do not establish that this passes WP:BAND nor do sources from a quick Google search. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:BEFORE requires more than an evaluation of the currently cited sources and a quick google search. Vice, Vogue, Heeb Magazine, Filler Magazine, Jewish Journal, Technikart, Jewish Journal again... It looks like the lead singer, Petite Meller, might actually be the most notable subject, though, and I don't think I would be opposed to merging this article to an article about her should someone create it (see e.g. EveningStandard and The Guardian). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above sources, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NMUSIC 1, clearly satisfies notability criteria. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Padraic Cunningham[edit]

Padraic Cunningham (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the highest level of Irish football, which is confirmed as not fully pro per WP:FPL, meaning that this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Players at the highest level in Ireland have faced deletion going back to 2010 see here where consensus was that they do meet notability at present Galway are in contention for a Europa League spot. Mo ainm~Talk 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The "consensus" that Mo ainm cites above merely shows that GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, which is not an area of contention, especially when this player fails both. GiantSnowman 09:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some reliable sources to show he doesn't fail GNG Irish Examiner RTE Extra time.ie goal.com midwest radio Connacht Tribune Do we intend to delete every single player who plays in the top flight of Irish football?Mo ainm~Talk 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. There is no consensus that playing in the League of Ireland makes players are notable (this AfD from April resulted in a unanimous decision to delete). Number 57 15:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is coverage in multiple sources not enough to satisfy GNG? Mo ainm~Talk 10:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the examples you put forward are just reports (or previews) on matches that he played in, so no – I would expect to see articles solely focussed on him as a player. But going further than that, due to the nature of sports coverage, you can write a well-referenced article on players playing well down the semi-pro leagues – during a similar debate a few months ago I created a well-referenced article in my userspace on a player playing for the club I support at level eight in England that included four news articles actually focussing on him (not simply match reports) as an example. Even though he plays for my club, I don't think he's a notable footballer, and I don't want Wikipedia filling up with tens of thousands of articles on semi-pro footballers who fall into the same category. Number 57 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, maybe a change is needed in policy in regard to players who are playing at the highest level in their country, at present Galway are having a very good season and it is not an impossibility that they could qualify for the Europa Cup. Mo ainm~Talk 12:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's been suggested and rejected many times in the past; playing at the top level does not make someone notable. The reason we have the fully pro rule is that these are leagues where there is genuinely enough interest to deem the players notable (i.e. in terms of attendances, sponsorship, tv income etc). Number 57 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. The "highest level" thing is a bit of a red herring in a way; while the Irish league isn't fully professional, that only means the subject doesn't *automatically* qualify for an article. It's entirely possible for a semi-pro or amateur player to still be notable and well-sourced; this guy appears to be neither, and there's literally nothing substantive in the article. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as others have said, no fully pro appearances made and clear failure of GNG Spiderone 11:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus for delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Isham[edit]

Lincoln Isham (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)

Being a great-grandson of Abraham Lincoln isn't enough for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, very few sources. Agree that being a great- grandson of Abraham Lincoln is not enough to gain him an article.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above. Nothing notable in the article. MB (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: notability not conferrable solely by being related to a notable individual. This is very clear, Wikipedia 101. Quis separabit? 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's still nothing for actual notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, falls down on the GNG (being distantly related to someone famous isn't in itself notable, and there's no claim to notability being *made* otherwise, let alone sourced).  Fosse   8► 16:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. Kudos to CorporateM for being upfront about his COI disclosure. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sangamo BioSciences[edit]

Sangamo BioSciences (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 gives the appearance of being well-sourced without actually being so. The sources are written by a Forbes "contributor"[1], only briefly mention the company[2][3] or are just press releases[4][5]. The article has content like "a major step toward immunological functional control of HIV" (a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim) cited to a press release. I have not found any sources to suggest the company is notable and promotional articles on anything marginally notable are typically still deleted. Please see the COI disclosure on my user page. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: copy/pasted promo; clear COI. Quis separabit? 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or perhaps redirect to Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects. I was unable to find more than brief mentions of the company in reliable sources, so it seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Perhaps the most notable thing about the company is their SB-728-T clinical trial, which was discussed in reliable sources like a New York Times article and a Scientific American article. These independent RS suggest that a mention of the trial at WP is reasonable and indeed it is already at Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects in the last sentence. I'd be OK with a redirect to that section, but because it isn't a perfect target, delete is a reasonable option too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work @Mark viking:. Personally I don't think a redirect is sensible in this case, but incorporating those citations into the Zinc fingers page might be. Not enough source material for a dedicated page, but a few sentences maybe. Please note my COI disclosure. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the NYT source to the zinc finger article. So noted on your disclosure--as always, thank you for being up front about your COI status. --Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing at all convincing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of available sources confirming notability - the subject appears to fail WP:CORP - and for the overly promotional tone (only really a step away from blatant advertising), which given the notability issues doesn't seem like something that could be fixed by a rewrite. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 16:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Appears to have been nominated in error. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry-Russell Hitchcock[edit]

Henry-Russell Hitchcock (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)

(neelix) No sure on this one. His first name is Henry-Russell. We don't tend to do redirects from people's first names. We don't have Bert redirecting to Bertrand Russell for example. Does this make sense? Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bennett has a lovely little anecdote he was in a cab and the driver said "you're that chap off the telly aren't you". Bennett said well yes I might be. The cab driver said "I had that Bertie Russell in the back of me cab the other day, so I asked him, well Lord Russell, what's it all about? And you know, the bugger couldn't tell me". Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What does the existence of a bad redirect have to do with anything? A bare glance at the snippets found by a Google book search for his name reveals clear notability: "the book that established Henry-Russell Hitchcock as a pre-eminent American historian of modern architecture" ... "twenty-one original essays were written to honor a scholar who has transformed the study and teaching of architectural history in the United States". Google scholar finds more titles like "Henry-Russell Hitchcock: The Architectural Historian as Critic and Connoisseur" (JSTOR 42620522) "Lewis Mumford, Henry-Russell Hitchcock and the Bay Region Style" (not online?), "Constructing Modernism, Berenice Abbott and Henry-Russell Hitchcock: A Re-creation of the 1934 Exhibition, the Urban Vernacular of the Thirties, Forties, …" [6], and "Curating history, exhibiting ideas: Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architectural exhibition practices at the MoMA" [7]. Clear pass of WP:GNG. If the nominator intended to delete the redirect Henry-Russell, leaving the article itself in place, this should be withdrawn and speedily closed; it is not the right forum for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, as no valid rationale for deletion is given. As DE points out above, the notability of the subject is unquestionable here. In fact, the references present in the article are already sufficient to establish such notability. If there is a bad redirect somewhere else, then that redirect needs to be either modified or deleted. That's certainly no reason at all to delete this article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Strong pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Just close it. No need to spend time on debating this. The wording indicates that SimonTrew (talk · contribs) intended to nominate the redirect page Henry-Russell for deletion and accidentally nominated the article. The most likely explanation: an overreliance on semi-automated editing combined with far too little sleep. --Hegvald (talk) 07:11, 29 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. Consensus is to delete. Should the subject meet WP:GNG or plays in a fully pro league in future, do ask for a WP:REFUND or just recreate the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baoringdao Bodo[edit]

Baoringdao Bodo (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he has played youth football, and will play pro football in future. Neither of these confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Delete - seems to be WP:TOOSOON but article should be recreated if subject meets notability requirements in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all convincing of any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom Spiderone 16:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NFOOTY, WP:TOOSOON. Although the ISL is fully pro, this is a youth team player who's never actually played in it, and there's no indication of notability beyond those. We don't have articles on every youth/trainee squad footballer at far more notable clubs.  Fosse   8► 16:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. If anyone wants to continue the discussion as to whether this should be renamed or merged elsewhere it can be brought up on its talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of senescence research[edit]

Timeline of senescence research (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)

Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions about "breakthroughs" and such, supported by primary sources. Also containing inaccuracies (e.g., group selection is not a "theory of aging"). Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree these sorts of lists shouldn't exist, as they inherently rely on a personal interpretation of events. A well-written article that follows coverage from reliable sources, on the other hand could potentially be of great value to the encyclopaedia. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Presuming the issue is with this being a timeline of research, rather than with the subject itself or with timelines themselves, it seems what would be needed are sources about the overarching subject which provide guidance about the sorts of things that should be included. There are indeed primary sources here, which is problematic, as yes, that would be original research to compile one's own selection of "greatest hits" but there are also citations like History of Research into Ageing/Senescence, A History of Life-Extensionism In The Twentieth Century, etc. which suggest it's not entirely reliant on primary sources. It also doesn't take more than a quick search to find plenty of other reliable sources with their own timelines on senescence/aging, which is a pretty typical standard for stand-alone lists on Wikipedia. I'll also add that this was created hours before the nomination (I deprodded it about an hour an a half after it was created), so I don't see why these aren't issues that couldn't possibly be addressed or even explained to the relatively new user who wrote the article before rushing to delete it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nobody is rushing here. AFD (and PROD as well) provide a whole week to show a subject is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but having your first article greeted immediately with an AfD notice is certainly a bit WP:BITEy. A novice editor does not know the timescales of the various WP processes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

In my estimation, an editor who has this as their very first edit, is bound to be familiar with AfD, too. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as the issues mentioned-Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions ... supported by primary sources ...can be fixed...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello. Here Wikisanchez. I created the page. I have no internet until tomorrow. Please be patient. I'll fix the problems as soon as possible. Greetings from Argentina.Wikisanchez (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez (talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ozzie plus some of the issues are already being fixed by Wikisanchez. DeVerm (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Senescence or move to History of senescence and convert to prose. This isn't really a good subject for a list, but it would make either a good history section at the main article or possibly a split, depending on how long the prose turns out to be. ~ Rob^Talk 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Randykitty at least point at the presumably unreliable sources. There are over fifty references on the page. Wikisanchez (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm no, that is not the way it works. You do not put tons of sources and then demand every editor to read in detail every of them before listening to them. A couple of good references is enough to keep, thousands of bad ones have no effect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few examples: uroworldindata.org, Naturalpedia, several press releases, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ourworldindata.org is supported by Oxford University. Why wouldn't it be reliable? Wikisanchez (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported" can mean many things (I guess here it means "is the web host"), it does not mean "exercizes editorial oversight". Here as Max Roser is the sole editor of the website, hence it is as self-published as you can get. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Wikisanchez is asking isn't "will you do the work of going through the article so I don't have to" but "give me something to go on". If someone doesn't have experience navigating primary vs. secondary sources or Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and reliable sources, a phrase like "idiosyncratic opinions about 'breakthroughs' and such, supported by primary sources" might sound like a desirable thing, so it can be challenging to actually make meaningful improvements (at least the targeted sort that would satisfy critics). He should get to know those policies and dig through the sources to try to figure it out, of course (nobody should get special treatment), but more examples would probably be helpful.

Of course, I may be ascribing a thought process to Wikisanchez that isn't actually applicable :)

@Wikisanchez: Just to summarize a point that may not itself be totally clear: with an article like a timeline, citing studies and other primary research is ok, but those sources do not themselves justify including something. There's always a question of "is this important enough to include in a timeline" -- and answering that without a source is original research. In other words, the sources have the science and the sources also tell us what science is important. If an item in the timeline doesn't have a source independent of the researchers themselves that effectively says "this is important", it shouldn't be in there (even if you know it's important). Another point is that stricter rules can apply to sourcing for anything related to biomedical content on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I removed the last two entries in the timeline. This discovery may be important, but we need a source saying it's important, and we should never be citing press releases. This organization may be important, but we need something saying it's sufficiently important within the timeline of senescence research, and again should not be citing a press release. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone lay out the argument for why a timeline is better than a history section written in prose? I'm just not seeing the benefit. I mentioned this with my vote above, but I wanted to specifically encourage replies to this point, because I haven't seen any counter-argument. ~ Rob^Talk 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be better, but I don't think that means we have to set other editors' priorities if they don't agree. Ultimately, if we had a perfect array of articles on the subject, I think there would be room for a timeline. We may think the article should take priority, but some people like the timeline format. You could write the history section and someone could use it to build a timeline or someone could build a timeline and you could use it to write the history section. I don't think there should be an absolute requirement that one come before the other, depending on what people are into and how they think. E.g. writing prose might be prohibitively difficult to someone who can still contribute by putting together a timeline, or someone's disability (or just different way of thinking) may make more sense out of a visually linear and table-based timeline than reading prose. I don't know, and I'm obviously not saying someone who prefers timelines must have a disability or something -- just saying I don't see a compelling reason to say "do prose instead". That said, if people don't think this timeline is appropriate on its own merits, merging may be a perfectly reasoanble route -- but I think it should be evaluated on its own, not in relation to the status of other articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I covered events with secondary sources and removed some unreliable sources. I left ouroworldindata.org as reference providing it's well covered by media. The article is not exhaustive, partly due to the large amount of theories on aging, but most of the popular theories (those with high frequency on the internet) are included on this timeline.01:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Wikisanchez (talk)

• Keep - The topic seems notable although some of the sources don't really fulfil WP:RS. The amount of general information shows that the topic is verifiable and encyclopaedic. As to the question of using pros, I much prefer pros myself but this timeline format is understandable and, for me, is well done. - Pmedema (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and restructure as History of senescence. I have to say that the scattering of pre-20th century philosophical thoughts does not site well beside the account of the modern development of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those philosophical thoughts were the science of that time. They were in charge when modern science didn't exist.Wikisanchez (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect - We don't need this, and putting things into a highly subjective timeline form rather than using standard prose isn't helpful. We already have: Life_extension#History_of_the_life_extension_movement. That whole page needs work, and that particular section is a particularly notable example. Basically anything here in this present page that's notable should be uprooted and planted over there. The stuff in this present page that isn't notable, such as the puffy press releases being used as citations, should just be gotten rid of.

Also going to note that if someone objects that historical research into life extension isn't the same thing as historical research into aging, then they're making a distinction without a strong difference in history. Individuals studied how exactly aging happens because of their interest in improving human lives. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this can also go to Life_extension#Current_strategies_and_issues and Life_extension#Proposed_strategies too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Merging a page isn't the same thing as outright just deleting it, so I tweaked my comment above to be clear. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sure, this page has issues, but WP:BEFORE really applies here. The unrealiable sources and the heavy reliance on primary sources can easily be fixed. What matters is the information is verified, and that the subject has beyond all doubt received enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• BEFORE would apply if I had argued a lack of notability. That is not the case, I basically argue that WP:TNT applies. --Randykitty (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Zocco[edit]

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

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

Subject has a long list of mentions (both listed in the article and found during my BEFORE), but, on closer inspection, all appear to be passing mentions, not "significant," ROUTINE, not independent of the source, or unreliable, thus failing GNG.  Rebbing  21:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nothing actually suggesting any solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend keeping page intact, as "significant" direct, dedicated media coverage of subject has been added, including notable characterizations of subject. Additionally, added info backing up significance of firm he co-founded. Taken together, subject now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCOReilly (talk • contribs) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and by himself, his achievements are not notable at all.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain Meets WP:GNG and subject's achievements are indeed notable: co-founded a leading VC firm which has backed some of the largest tech companies such as Facebook; he was called "one of the key VCs in Europe" by TechCrunch editor-at-large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpiven (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that notability is not typically inherited: the fact that Mr. Zocco's firm may be notable does not make him notable. Rubbing elbows with notable companies and individuals and frequent mentions in the press fall far short of the significant and independent coverage described by GNG and BASIC. Rebbing 18:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K: Secret Eye[edit]

K: Secret Eye (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)

Upcoming film which does not meet notability for films because there is no coverage in reliable sources. While the film may become notable after release, it is currently too soon. It should also be noted that the article creator's username is the same as the director's first name. Opencooper (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Secret EyeAbhirup Ghosh Rudranil Ghosh Rajatava Dutta Santanu Chakrobarty Chinmoy Pal

• Delete and/or draftify per failing WP:NFF. Searches seem to indicate that the fillmaker is a film student, and even if ignoring the common-in-India first name "Abhirup" and a possible WP:COI, filming of this has not been confirmed, and the topic has not the wide coverage that we would prefer. We can wait and revisit the topic in a few months. It is not unsourcable, but THIS needs translation and while THIS does not confirm filming in text, its included movie stills are strongly indicative. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film has an IMDB page and its Facebook and Twitter pages have shooting stills which establish that shooting has taken place. I think this complies with the terms of Wikipedia. This is the official facebook page [8]. This is the IMDB page [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just existing isn't enough, articles in Wikipedia require coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in India. It has written about the film. This link has been shared [10]. I think this is a reliable enough source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes I saw the source. Unfortunately that's not enough. It's a short article while notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Two short news stories do not lend themselves to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Opencooper (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source has been added. There are numerous film related wikis which have much lesser sources than K: Secret Eye yet they pass notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be other articles that might not meet our notability criteria, but that doesn't mean they won't be deleted nor that those films meet our standards. This deletion discussion is talking about this film in particular, so arguments should focus on it specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that article is from the same newspaper as the previous source, the Prabasher Khaber. Notability requires coverage in multiple sources, and even if we included this one, it would still not constitute significant in-depth coverage. Opencooper (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons.  Sandstein  11:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonus[edit]

Cyclonus (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 character article fails to establish notability. Other than a trivial "Top 8" reference, all the references reinforce fictional details and trivial toy details. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge if there's anything that people want merging; I am, however, opposed to keeping as-is, as I do not see any evidence of real-world notability. While the article is very long, it seems to be mostly made up of trivial details. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Decepticons for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reasons? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article lacks any evidence of real-world notability. Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A Google search indicates the character will appear in Transformers (film series)#Transformers: The Last Knight (2017). If so, there will be plenty of real-world coverage for the character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer (talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 May 2016
  • If and when that coverage is forthcoming, the page can be recreated. Appearing film does not automatically grant notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. There are more hits on Google Books for this character than most of the others that have been nominated lately, but the results are basically trivial mentions, price guides, or novels. There isn't enough independent sourcing about the real-world aspects to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 28 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 Product_recall#2016. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CRF Frozen Foods recall[edit]

CRF Frozen Foods recall (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)

Just another news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge - The article describes a product recall involving over 300 CRF Frozen Foods and Garland Ventures Limited consumer goods delivered under more than 40 different brand names. If the article cannot be kept, it should be merged with Listera (or a similar article), as this is a widely encompassing issue. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Other potential redirect targets might be Product_recall#2016 or List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, as under these circumstances, CRF Frozen Foods may be a highly searched term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, topic has been discussed in the news media and analyzed in secondary sources. See Peanut Corporation of America, a company which murdered people. Heaviside glow (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a news event. Could be merged into CRF Frozen Foods. The Banner talk 22:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Product_recall#2016 or some other appropriate target article. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PAGEDECIDE, this event is best understood within the context of an article about food product recalls or an article about organizations that were impacted by the recall. If we had an article for CRF Foods, then this information should certainly be included as a sub-section of that article, but CRF does not have its own article. Instead, CRF Frozen Foods and CRF Foods are redirects that currently send readers to CRF Frozen Foods recall. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Product_recall#2016. Gioto (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Per [11],

"The company's products include 40 different brands names sold in all 50 states, as well as in Canada and Mexico. The recall continues to grow because other processed foods use CRF ingredients."

Also, per [12], "Products were both packaged for sale as individual products and repackaged by places like Piggly Wiggly, Kroger and ConAgra foods as ingredients in a host of other store-brand and private-label products for stores like Trader Joe's and Costco.

Also, retailers including Target and regional distributors such as Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee Foods have recently recalled products made by Tokyo-based Ajinomoto Windsor due to the company recalling 70 of its Asian variety products that contain CRF vegetables — about 22 million kilograms worth — some of which were also sold in Canada and Mexico." --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's simply still nothing actually convincing for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Product recall § 2016, which presently has a single very short sentence about this topic. This will improve the merge target. WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above, seems an eminently sensible suggestion - this isn't really article material per WP:NOTNEWS but it's useful information to have *somewhere*.  Fosse   8► 16:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article meets NAUTHOR & GNG, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asumiko Nakamura[edit]

Asumiko Nakamura (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)

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

No notable works for EN Wikipedia. Is there enough to keep the author around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and suggesting withdrawn per WP:HEY, after the expansion it is clear that the subject passes GNG and NAUTHOR. Worth reminding the nominator her works being currently redlinked in en.wikipedia does not mean they are non-notable, and authors/works which are notable in Japan are perfectly suitable for having articles in en.wiki. Cavarrone 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the notability tag was placed in 2012, so she was not notable prior to that. That her Doukyusei manga got a film adaptation in 2016 does help her notability as well as her other works charting on Oricon in 2015, probably because of the anime film. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a crappy argument! A notability tag placed in 2012 does not automatically mean she was not notable prior to that, except you are stating that every notability tag means the relevant article is not notable. Also, wathever she was notable or not in 2012, does not mean you are supposed to ignore coverage about her works in 2016! And obviously a manga of her adapted into a film and her other works receiving reviews do not just help but demonstrate notability, both for WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. And as you yourself apparently noted, she had already charted on Oricon back in 2013. Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article at 2012 [13] and then right before the AFD. [14] There's nothing that showed she was that notable at that time. There is now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy keep Lack of sources in English does not mean she is not notable when sources in Japanese are available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide those sources. Make sure they are secondary ones that are independent of the publisher or her blog. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing Asahi Shimbun, Oricon or ダ・ヴィンチニュース are unreliable or have a conflict of interest with the subject you should provide evidences . Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the state of the article at the time of the AFD. It was supported only by primaries such as JManga (publisher), and DMP (publisher). Nothing in the lead paragraph indicated that these works getting licensed by North America / Europe was a big deal to establish that she is notable beyond being some small author in Japan. This was all prior to the recent efforts by KurodaSho. Of course Oricon, Asahi, and D-Navi are reliable secondary sources. That's what the article needs. That, and the ANN references showing they are charting on Oricon and the news about the movie help justify keeping it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notability has been established so this one is a keeper. I want to say I am a bit disgusted by the comments above, can we please keep this WP:CIVIL by WP:AGF? I see no evidence that Angus put this up for AfD out of malice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Knowledgekid87. Notability has been established. References and citations in Japanese are perfectly acceptable to establish notability here. For instance: ダ・ヴィンチニュース Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:13, 30 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. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Preston[edit]

Kieran Preston (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable youth team player who meets neither WP:NFOOTY or the GNG for standards of notability.  Fosse   8► 16:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Agents Fund[edit]

Fallen Agents Fund (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 does not comply with WP:N It does not list any reliable third party sources and I could not find any. Article creator has deleted tags and PROD without comment nor article improvement. DeVerm (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DeVerm (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DeVerm (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any coverage of this charity in independent reliable sources. That's kind of strange, but maybe it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I found this online, which states; "The Fallen Agents Fund is a charitable organization with the goal of aiding and assisting the families of fallen Border Patrol Agents, weather they fell in the line of duty or off duty, weather they fell from injuries physical or mental. The Fallen Agents Fund has just obtained its 501(c)(3) status but has been working to improve the lives of the families of fallen agents for the past few years. With your help we can assist the families of those who have given the greatest sacrifice in service to our nation." Notability, however, not determined just by that alone. Quis separabit? 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting pages like these always feels weird because we of-course support the goals of such organizations, but that feeling is explicitly not reason to include it in WP. In this case, your quote comes from the website of this organization itself, which can be considered self promotion, rather than a reliable secondary source. We need notable newspapers, magazines etc. publishing interviews, yearly donations and such before the organization becomes "notable" enough for WP. DeVerm (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Added a referance from bizpedia it gives founders names and some location information. Im not sure if thats the secondary source were looking for or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorleyhey (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With regret. The 501c3 filing is available online, but I cannot find secondary sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's rather newly founded and simply nothing actually for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things - the sources we'd need to make an article on a charitablie initiative like this won't be available for a long time yet.  Fosse   8► 16:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah Alvares[edit]

Delilah Alvares (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 beauty pageant winner, occasional theatre actor and a writer without any substantive references to her work. The many refs fail to establish notability . Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – As per WP:GNG^[1] says that it needs to have reliable sources to pass it, and it clearly have. Are you telling me GOA doesn't make her notable? Well we should also propose Aditi Vats, every girl in Category:2013_beauty_pageants_in_India (also 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016), Gail Nicole Da Silva and many other hundreds of "beauty pageant winners". The ocasionally part of your sentence, shows how wrong you are when researching the subject, will cite this part from Delilah Alvares:

Four wonders (2007) as the mental sister, Ms. Brown (2007) as the lead character, Drunkard (2005) as the lead character, Murder Mystery (2007) in a double role of a mentally challenged child and the psychopath, Schizophrenia (2008) as the schizophrenic, The prostitute from Baina (2006) as the prostitute, that was critically reviewed negatively as being too vulgar for theatre and Money makes the world go round (2006) as the supporting character.

Also:^[2]

She was then offered short films Expect the Unexpected (2011)[12], Poonam (2011), Kismat (2012), supporting characters in feature movies and television shows like Diary of a Gypsy (2012-2013) and others, special appearance on Channel V – Dil, Dosti, Dance, TV commercials like Rubicon fruit juice, Fastrack, CMYK, Canon Power shot – what makes us click (2012) with Anushka Sharma and music videos, among which were Khabir Moraes's "Gopan Io" by Milroy Goes (2010) and "Vote Tit for Tat" by Remo Fernandes (2012)

Model for:

L'Oreal-Bridal look, SummerTime 2011, Music festival-2011, Mr. Goa 2010, North-Ease Breeze show, Monty Sally, Wendell Rodricks, Verma d'mello, Jyostsna Bhat, Philu Martins, Yana Nagoba, Gitanjali Jewellery,[14] and worked with many photographers around the world like Frimson's Chicago, Walk through magazine-Dubai, Marlboro-United Kingdom, Prasad Pankar, Fabian Rodrigues, Seema Amonkar, Jayavanti Loundo, Henry Nazareth, Datta Gawade, Siddhesh Naik, Brijesh Kakodkar, Krupa Tamhankar, Chetana Bhat, Mubarak Khan, Ryan D'souza, Ashok Pol, Gautam Pai, Pooja Lawande Karmali, Nidhi Tar, Gautam Karkal, Pratik Chari, Manohar Chari, Hemant Parab, Ashley D'souza, Ashu Dhond, Ashwin Shukla, Sheldon Rodrigues, Sharad Khot Photography, Au Point photography, 'Out of the Box' Photography, Crispino Dourado and many more.

And the "Writer" without any notable work will refer this:

Alvares has authored a fiction novel series, The Maze published by Christoph, Matthews Publishing, New York

To start; The Maze is a very popular series worldwide, make sure to do some research^[3] AND Christopher Matthews Publishing is notable in the indie area of the books.^[4]

IMO, this actually meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. But since your attacks directly to the subject as "many ref fails", I am happy to call WP:ARS. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails notability, IMO, generally. Agree Disagree with @OGfromtheGut. Quis separabit? 15:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Huh? User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, how can you agree with me and mark delete? Well let's delete 100's of articles. IMO, it does not fail WP:GNG, as an mid-experienced Wikipedian. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This list of references given above is interesting since none of them convey any notability. They are either advertisments or press releases ("Interviews with..."). None of the are from independent reliable publications. Please read WP:GNG with care. It isn't just about mentions in publications.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to fail the GNG - I'm not seeing any significant coverage in independent sources (just press release rewrites and brief mentions). The massive list of clients is much too long and mostly unsourced, and the article doesn't explain why the book series is notable.  Fosse   8► 16:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I reviewed the sources presented here and do not consider http://pretty-hot.com/delilah-alvares/, http://awesomegang.com/delilah-alvares/, http://christophermatthewspub.com/the-maze/, and http://www.bookbuzzr.com/MontanaYank to be reliable sources. My searches for sources also did not return the significant coverage in reliable sources necessary for the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropocene and Kazakhstan[edit]

Anthropocene and Kazakhstan (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)

We already have an article for Anthropocene. The rest of the article appears to be about a "Green Bridge" initiative in Kazakstahn. However the whole is much more an essay rather than a Wikipedia article and I see no notability here for the Green Bridge initiative of Kazakhstan. This appears to be a dog's dinner of an article that needs to be completely restructured and thought through and should probably be titled Green Bridge Partnership Programme, although on present showing, I would doubt whether that would meet WP:GNG. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and has a distinct promotional feel to it.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reads like an essay but could potentially be a future article if the project is notable. Cursory searches show a lot of similar phrasing to sources from UNDP and UN ESCAP, but not enough to qualify it for G12. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is apparently for the that subject specifically and there's simply nothing else to actually suggest this has achieved any solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walmart greeter[edit]

Walmart greeter (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 see no reason to have an article specifically about Walmart greeters, as nothing distinguishes them from greeters in general, whether at Home Depot, at Costco, at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or at the local stores we patronized in my town in the 1970s (demonstrating that Walmart doesn't even have the distinction of having introduced the concept). Largoplazo (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article gets deleted, we should still probably cover the subject of greeters at any business at a new article that doesn't currently exist, because Greeter is about people who welcome tourists. Everymorning (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right, I saw that article and was thinking as well that it would also make sense to have a generic one about greeters at businesses. Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BUT PROVIDED as per above rename and generalise. For example: KMart in Australia has greeters. Bunnings in Australia has them. Aoziwe (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to greeting per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If someone feels ambitious enough to create an article about greeters, go right ahead, but until then we should make a sub-section at greeting about professional "greeters." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Walmart greeter, unlike generic greeters in Home Depot or whatever, is a big meme in America and a big cultural stereotype. It's not a coincidence that Forbes or the Wall Street Journal announce the come back of the iconic greeters in Wal-Mart, when there's no any similar article about greeters in Home Depot or Costco. I did create this article precisely because of a piece of comedy on TV (it was maybe Bill Maher, not sure) related to Walmart greeter that my wife had to explain to me because I was unaware of the thing. I think it would have been interesting to know this on Wikipedia ; In fact, even on Wikipedia, there was several occurence of Walmart greeter in several article (often related to comedy). --Deansfa (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what's iconic about Walmart greeters in particular. If retailer X happened to have instituted some policy change regarding, say, its checkout clerks, and then changed things back to the way they were, and this happened to be reported in the press, that wouldn't mean that checkout clerks of X have any particular notability. In either case, what articles are about isn't the staff, it's about the policy change, and I would apply WP:NEVENT as well as WP:NOTNEWS to that. Largoplazo (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, it's neither you nor I who decide they're iconic or not, but reliable secondary sources, like for example this article of the National Post titled "Wal-Mart Stores Inc brings back its ICONIC greeters". There's lots of articles of major newspapers over the years about these greeters: Huffington Post 2012, Bloomberg 2012, Wall Street Journal 2015, Forbes 2016, meaning we meet the duration of coverage and diversity of sources criteria of WP:NEVENT or NOTNEWS. --Deansfa (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "There's lots of articles of major newspapers over the years": Yet all the links you provided here are about the same inextricably associated pair of events. As for "iconic": If a newspaper article reports that a person about whom Wikipedia has an article is "irrepressible", does Wikipedia also report that the person is "irrepressible"? Let's not confuse a writer's casual, abstract characterization conveying his own subjective impression with objective, concrete information obtained by the source through careful research. Largoplazo (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Between you who explains that you have greeters in your local store, and a financial prominent newspaper that characterized Wal-Mart greeters as iconic, I prefer believing the reliable source over your local life. It's how we write article on Wikipedia. Letterman didn't label John McCain as a local store greeter during his presidential campaign in 2008, he labelled him as a Wal-Mart greeter. What I'm trying to explain is that beyond the position itself, "Wal-Mart greeter" is used as a stereotype in America, is a subject of memes, and a topic used in several pieces of comedy (like for example this piece of comedy by Jeff Dunham about becoming a Wal-Mart greeter). --Deansfa (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You continue to confuse information in which one has confidence when it comes from a reliable source, with a casual, non-informative, subjective epithet like "iconic" tossed out there by the person writing the text, reflecting no more than a personal impression.

A number of sources returned from a Google Books search on store greeters] restricted to books published before 1980 confirm my recollection that Walmart didn't originate the concept. These include a 1957 work mentioning the position at Hechinger home improvement stores and a 1960 work explaining the role of greeters at Selfridge's. So any source that claims that Walmart did create the position has undermined its own reliability.

If you want to write about the Walmart greeter as a meme, then you'll need to find reliable sources discussing that meme or else you are engaging in original research/synthesis. Largoplazo (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an article about Wal-Mart greeter here, not about the concept of greeters. I never pretended that Wal-Mart invented the concept, which you implied that I did. Also I provided diversity of sources, duration of coverage as asked in the WP recommendation you provided. I never based my opinion on my local bodega having a greeter when I was young. I even went further and showed that "Wal-Mart greeter" was a stereotype or an archetype used in several pieces of comedy in America, citing Bill Maher and also sharing a link to a Jeff Dunham piece about Wal-Mart greeters. You never stopped talking about your personal experience as rationale for why this article should be deleted. I prefer diversity of sources and duration of coverage.--Deansfa (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned my personal experience exactly one time, but, sure go ahead and say that I "never stopped talking about [my] personal experiences". If you happen to have found a number of places where people mentioned Walmart greeters, and you're concluding from that that Walmart greeters in particular are a meme, a stereotype, an archetype, that's your own synthesis. In the second sentence of the article you implied that Walmart created the role when you wrote that "The role was created by Sam Walton in the 1980s." "Greeter" is a role; it isn't as though being a Walmart greeter is a different role from being a greeter, any more than being a Walmart cashier is a different role from being a cashier. So your wording implies that Walton created the greeter concept. If you mean to say that "Sam Walton introduced the greeter role to his stories in 1980" that would be clearer if that's what you meant. Largoplazo (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To expand on my point about synthesis: Mention in comedy pieces by David Letterman and Jeff Dunham doesn't qualify as substantial coverage in reliable sources. If you are drawing conclusions about the prominence of the Walmart greeter concept from those, that's your synthesis from your individual observations. Largoplazo (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• How would you feel about the argument that because the "Attention, Kmart shoppers" announcement has become a well-known meme, it follows that Kmart shoppers are genuinely notable beyond the trivial intersection of the respective notabilities of "shoppers" and "Kmart", and a Kmart shopper article is sustainable? There's even plenty of coverage of Kmart shoppers in reliable sources.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no bibliographical source about Kmart shopper or Costco greeters. No article in major newspaper around the world. For Wal-Mart greeters, there is. There's an entire chapter about the history of Wal-Mart greeters in the book The Wal-Mart Way by Don Soderquist, there's dozens of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the HuffPo. It's called duration of coverage (2005-2016), diversity of sources (books, articles of several major newspaper around the world), reliability of published sources. We can even extend the topic and write about its usage in popular culture and comedy. I respect and understand your point of view, but I really believe that this one topic is eligible to have its own article. Have a nice Memorial Day. --Deansfa (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is a bibliographical source, as opposed to, say, the five sources I gave you (one of which was from a book, if that's what you intended by the use of "bibliographical")? (You say no major newspaper has written about them. Really? Did you look?) If a book about Walmart talks about Walmart greeters—well, what other greeters is a book about Walmart going to discuss? It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that Walmart greeters have any notability independent of the notability of Walmart. There is also duration of coverage, diversity of sources, etc., with respect to Kmart shoppers. "Attention, Kmart shoppers" became a meme in popular culture and comedy. Here's a book (yes, yet another book) all about Kmart with an entire chapter on Kmart's failure to focus properly on its shoppers. I'm not seeing anything that distinguishes the status of Kmart shoppers from the status of Walmart greeters for purposes of assessing individual notability.

In that Soderquist book I do not see a chapter that's all about greeters, and I see only half a dozen pages or so that even have the word "greeter" on them. On the other hand, it does have a chapter all about Walmart supplier relationships. Do Walmart suppliers therefore have their own notability as a class meriting treatment in a freestanding article?

Oh, it just came to my attention: Soderquist was the vice chairman and COO of Walmart. Not exactly an independent source. Largoplazo (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can write an article about Kmart shoppers, good for you! I'm absolutely not interested by this topic. By the way, I did read the articles you shared and they're not centered about Kmart shoppers: To make people believe that Wall Street Journal/Forbes/Bloomberg articles centered on Wall Mart greeter are the same than local radio station reports about the closing of a Kmart store in Florida is a good try. --Deansfa (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You missed a trick. Several sources such as Ortega 1999, p. 202 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFOrtega1999 (help) credit the Crowley origin tale to "company folklore". Others trace it to a 1990s biography of Walton, some even quoting it directly. In the meantime, McClurg 2014, pp. 145–146 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcClurg2014 (help) tells a quite different origin, at length. Dunnett & Arnold 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDunnettArnold2006 (help) is yet more detailed coverage of the subject as a whole, incidentally, cited as primary source material by a few secondary sources such as Scharoun 2012, pp. 125–126 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFScharoun2012 (help).

  Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ortega, Bob (1999). In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and how Wal-Mart is Devouring the World. Kogan Page Publishers. ISBN 9780749431778.
  • McClurg, Bob (2014). The Tasca Ford Legacy: Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday!. CarTech Inc. ISBN 9781613251287.
  • Dunnett, Jane; Arnold, Stephen J. (2006). "Falling Prices, Happy Faces: Organizational Culture at Wal-Mart". In Brunn, Stanley D. (ed.). Wal-Mart World: the World's Biggest Corporation in the Global Economy. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781135929138.
  • Scharoun, Lisa (2012). "The Rise of the Big Box". America at the Mall: The Cultural Role of a Retail Utopia. McFarland. ISBN 9780786490509.

• Merge - to greeter. This has been an interesting discussion and it proves that there is a debated history of this position covered in the literature. I propose that a redirect be left standing and that the material be generalized and merged to the extant piece on greeter, with a redirect established for store greeter. Walmart does not seem to have invented the position, so attributing something special to that chain via a freestanding article seems inappropriate, but there is definitely GNG oompf to support a piece on the generalized position — in which article extensive study of the Walmart case would be fully appropriate. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The greeter article is entirely about social tourism and volunteers who welcome tourists in their city or region. This article doesn't really fit in there, in my opinion, because the topics are vaguely similar in their general nature, but are not particularly related in nature. Apples and oranges. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, thus qualifying for a standalone article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's better than before, since at least there's a diversity of topics rather than being focused on the one pair of events where Walmart dismissed its greeters, then reinstituted them (which is really about Walmart, not about its greeters). I'm still skeptical, because it looks like cherry-picking, not making it clear why Walmart greeters are notable independent of greeters in general. Walmart has a huge number of stores so, yes, many greeters are Walmart greeters, but I'm still not sure I see that they have special significance beyond that to this particular intersection of two categories, "Walmart" and "greeter".

I arbitrarily ran a web search on "united flight attendant". I found such diverse articles as these: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I'm not sure that on the strength of these that United Airlines flight attendants have notability distinct from that of every other airline's flight attendants who, among them, engage in labor disputes and, individually, get involved in all sorts of newsworthy occurrences. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Deansfa. I would generally find myself leaning to merge here, but the greeters at Walmart specifically are clearly notable as they've been covered by numerous reliable sources, and are considered a meme in America, thus meeting the standards for WP:GNG and qualifying to have their own, independent article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Shibuya[edit]

Shigeru Shibuya (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)

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

Gene Starwind in Outlaw Star is a lead role, but I'm not sure how notable Iketeru Futari is or any of his other roles. Is that enough to keep him around? GPH VADB shows 89 roles. ANN has no news articles on him though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the Japanese wiki has only one primary source. Since we cant find coverage in third party sources, the person fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing overall suggesting he can be confirmed for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamotsu Nishiwaki[edit]

Tamotsu Nishiwaki (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)

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

No lead roles in any major productions. Cell games announcer is low on the supporting cast for Dragon Ball Kai. Unclear what else is there. 85 roles on VADB though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any meaningful content that needs to be kept, the article can always be re-created down the line with bio info added if the person proves to be notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I also concur there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tamao Hayashi[edit]

Tamao Hayashi (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)

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

Her most notable role is Nene-chan in Shin-chan, but other than that she has a lead role in Dororonpa (not a notable title for EN Wikipedia) and um, what else? That doesn't seem like enough to pass notability. 56 roles in VADB though. [32] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable in her own field and apparently in every other way. Quis separabit? 14:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as a hoax, and creator blocked indef. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond James O'Donnell[edit]

Desmond James O'Donnell (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)

De-prodded so bringing it here. Appears to be a made up person. I can find no evidence that anyone by this name ever competed for Ireland at the Olympics. Edits by the creator elsewhere seem to confirm that this may be the case. Even if he is real then this is an unsourced BLP. Basement12 (T.C) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Sports Reference site shows no such Irish athlete at the 1976 Olympics, nor any other. Tassedethe (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above; also my own search similarly uncovered nothing. SR also indicates that the youngest Irish athlete was 20 years old; the subject would have been 16, which is extraordinarily young for an Olympian in men's track events. Presumably this would have been likely to draw comment from reliable sources at the time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:59, 30 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.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yūji Fujishiro[edit]

Yūji Fujishiro (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)

(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)

I can't figure out what lead roles he is notable for in anime. ANN highlights only one role in Voltron. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese page lists a much wider range of credits as you might expect. Of the titles I recognised i'm not sure they are much more than mostly minor roles, but there might be some buried in there. Prolific yes, notable not so sure.SephyTheThird (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless anything else better such as archives can be found and examined, because the current works are nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see this person as being notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program[edit]

Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program (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. Programs at institutions generally do not get Wikipedia articles. Any useful content can be reintegrated into California Institute of Integral Studies. jps (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's still nothing particularly convincing solid independent notability has been achieved yet, nothing convincing for its own article thus Delete. Notifying DGG for schools analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. , essentially an advertisement for a non-notable program. In practice, individual programs within a department are almost always much too minute for separate articles. Not even the School of Consciousness and Transformation which offers this as one of its 10 programs would normally get an article of its own. DGG ( talk ) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to California Institute of Integral Studies, which presently has no mention of this program of the school. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Merge. I haven't actually done enough research to weigh in on keep vs. delete, but assuming this gets deleted (given the discussion above), and looking at California Institute of Integral Studies, I don't see any other programs listed there, so it seems to me that even a selective merge would have problems with WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Hopak[edit]

Combat Hopak (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 martial art - recent creation (2000s) based on national dance. Only reference is to its home page - no indication of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG and also appears to fail WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing to suggest the depth of solid independent notability, would be best mentioned as part of something else, not as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chudi Ejekam[edit]

Michael Chudi Ejekam (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)

Following sock puppets of another undisclosed paid editor, I have discovered this article as another promotional piece. Creator is blocked as a sockpuppet and SPI says all edits by all accounts of this editor were for COI promotion of clients without disclosing them as paid edits which is a violation of Wikipedia Terms of Service.

This article is a similar promo BLP about a non notable individual who does not make the cut to be on wikipedia. The content is also clearly promotional with statements such as "played a vital role in the formal retail revolution" and is most likely aimed at acquiring rankings in google search which is another abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a SEO tool. Other proponents and edits possibly include BLP violations that accuse involvement in scam but they do not match up to WP:CRIME criteria as well so this individual is non notable on both basis.

I have done some google searching and all websites that come up are bare mentions of the individual, drive by quotes by him in news sources again with bare mentions, PR sources and results that are other individuals by the same or similar name.

• Hereby, I nominate this article for deletion and !vote delete on the basis of WP:GNG, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI and not to mention undisclosed paid editing by a proven sock puppet. Drewziii (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Any article created by a sock of a banned user qualifies for immediate Speedy Delete per WP:G5, and I have tagged it as such. No need for the full AfD process on this one. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined the G5. The master was blocked on May 1, and the puppet created the article on April 30. To qualify for G5, a puppet must create the article after either the master or another puppet was blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing at all actually suggesting any solid independent notability by far, there's nothing minimally acceptable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11, promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Initiative[edit]

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

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

Does not seem to be a notable company by our standards. The coverage isn't there, and it's hard to tell what they actually accomplished. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From this video games reliable sources search, I might suggest there is indeed reliably sourced coverage of this company (and thus notability). Especially, this USA Today article introduces in-depth coverage, which is presently the 3rd citation in the article. Keep. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it "introduces" coverage? I'm not sure what that means. This USA Today article has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject, and the other three (it explicitly says) simply rehash a press release--even the quote from the "veteran filmmaker" comes straight out of the PR clipping. So it's not in-depth anything (and it's lousy "journalism" too). Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources are a mixture of pages barely mentioning Rogue Initiative, PR and other promotional and publicity sites, etc. Written as a promotional article on a non-notable subject, toned down by later editors, but still without the sourcing required to show notability by Wikipedia's standards. Also, in a Google search, almost all the first couple of pages of hits are PR sites, non-independent and/or non-reliable sources such as the company's own web site, LinkedIn, FaceBook, Wikipedia, pressreleasejet.com, etc. Really no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still a year-within newly started company with nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability as its own article. Delete and we can wait for better perhaps some years from now. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 27 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Brandt[edit]

Andy Brandt (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Played and coached in the mid-minors, but won no distinctions that would meet any criterion of WP:NHOCKEY. No qualifying news sources out there that don't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability requirements for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still simply nothing convincing of any solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said Daftari[edit]

Said Daftari (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 previously removed. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Never played in a FPL so fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Comment Hasn't the subject of this article played for the national team? It does not say so in national football teams.com but is mentioned in the French and German Wikipedia versions. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: - and where are the reliable sources in those articles supporting those claims (ie that he actually played)? GiantSnowman 15:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There a fare share of sources and websites that mention him as an international footballer, but none show any proof of what games he actually played. In all likely hood it was probably an unofficial friendly or something of the sort. The player probably fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass the notability guide for association football due to know appearances in a fully professional league or international matches. I haven't found any sources that indicate the subject passes the general notability guideline - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless solid evidence comes up that he has been capped fully, he fails NFOOTY Spiderone 12:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's simply nothing at all convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmetic Solutions[edit]

Cosmetic Solutions (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 page fails the general notability guideline. I am not sure, why it was created. Zunailmeredia (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominating user has been reported to the "Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The other article nominated for deletion by this user on the same day is a BLP and the subject of that article has reported receiving a blackmail email. The case is OTRS ticket:2016042810015351. --Krelnik (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. References are either non-independent or are mere autogenerated directory listings. Deli nk (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. I won't offer an official !vote at this time, but the references currently in the article appear to be run of the mill business directory listings which do not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only sources are listings, and the current content would need to be TNT'd to be encyclopedic. czar 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: This is not the yellow pages. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as still nothing at all for any actual notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose Simon[edit]

Jenna Rose Simon (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 minor actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• She is an upcoming actress who is now also very well known for her concept art depicting child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmydabosh (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) — Jimmydabosh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Some minor mentions, however nothing that would show that they meet WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Absolutely not notable at this time. Clear WP:NACTOR fail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Fletcher Irwin[edit]

Ashton Fletcher Irwin (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)

Unreffed BLP Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete< Unreferenced; character is not notable independently of 5 seconds of summer.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to redirect as below.TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer for now (unless and until he becomes separately noteworthy) seems the obvious solution - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: to band article 5 Seconds of Summer. The only notability lies within the band. Fylbecatulous talk 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer as a plausible redirect from band member. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then Redirect because there's nothing to suggest these current contents can be acceptable for notability anytime soon, nothing to suggest there's a near future of his own article happening. I nearly closed this myself but delete would be best before redirect. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conor O' Grady[edit]

Conor O' Grady (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 coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NARTIST. All references in the article are to social media and blogs. I did not find any significant coverage of this subject when I PRODed it six months ago nor do I find any now. Jbh^Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. O'Grady had his first solo show and no other notable achievements that have received significant attention.Mduvekot (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's loads of contents but nothing actually convincing for solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Buntine[edit]

Robert Buntine (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)

Might not meet notability standards as per WP:BIO.  TOW  05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created this article in the belief that a major obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested notability. Within minutes of posting the bio it has been nominated for deletion. I was surprised anyone had been able to read it let alone read the references provided to gain an insight into Buntine's importance to education in Australia. It was my intention to create bios for his mother, father and grandfather given their notability as well. I would then create a "Buntine Family" article. At this stage I won't create any links to other pages that are relevant but will leave the article as an orphan until others comment. I trust that those who do comment know something about the subject of independent schools in Australia and in particular the sport of rowing ... I have noticed this is often not the case in these discussions. In regards to rowing the importance of Buntine's coaching of future Olympians needs to be considered but I'm loathe to waste my time adding this topic when the article is under threat. Castlemate (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added links to the many international rowers who were influenced by Buntine as a coach. I hope someone with knowledge of King's old boys from this category will add their names to the list. Castlemate (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (UPDATE Neutral) Keep As the Rowing (sport) is international in scope, this articles subject meets the guidelines of having gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time and can be compared to Steve Gladstone from Yale University who is one of the premier rowing coaches in the United States I believe. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a confirmed non-deletionist of anything, I must, however, strongly defer to the superior comments made regarding this articles subject, and as it pertains to WP policy, by @Mendaliv: and therefore change my opinion from keep to neutral. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't bring myself to believe, nor can I find any evidence, that SMH changes its editorial policy when it comes to publishing obituaries, no matter who has written them. Therefore, and when considering this source as valid, this articles subject meets the basic criteria, in my opinion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Since he is dead the bar for providing actual citations is lower. I am confident that more citations are in the wings and that this article should therefore not be deleted. Cheers! ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reality check (UPDATE: Delete) - I don't doubt that Buntine was an outstanding coach and a great mentor to many young rowers, but he does not fit into WP:TEACHER, and I don't see much by way of a more general assertion of notability. Aside from the SMH obituary, the sources are either primary (published by various schools), or don't mention him at all (bio pages for Olympic and other rowers, SMH article about his brother in law). The only independent, pre-death source is a report that mentions him in one line as a coach of a victorious school crew, which I would argue does not meet "significant coverage". I am not familiar with the weight newspaper obituaries carry as evidence toward GNG, so I'll refrain from !voting for now, but there is certainly no "lower bar" for providing citations merely because he is no longer alive. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Yeti Hunter: I would think instead of teacher this articles subject falls more within Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games (Why isn't rowing included on this list?) as his notability in the Rowing (sport) is quite accomplished. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers @Picomtn:, after posting I did think that WP:NSPORT would be more applicable. Having reviewed that policy, I am less convinced of Buntine's claim to notability. See e.g. WP:NTRACK, which has a notability guideline for track-and-field coaches, saying they are presumed notable if they coached olympic or world championship athletes during their period of accomplishment. Although Buntine coached numerous rowers who went on to become olympians, he only coached them during their school years, not as olympians or world champions. Even this claim is not supported by the references given in the article (the Geelong College obituary does not mention any olympic rowers by name, and none of the citations for the olympians mention Buntine); it thus appears to be original research. Suggest this entry would be more appropriate for a geaneology and family history wiki such as Familypedia. –Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the comparison to Steve Gladstone, coaching for many years at a top US university (particularly one renowned for rowing prowess) is a big step above a high-school coach in assumed notability, even if college-level rowing is not "the highest level" of the sport. Gladstone has top-level sources (eg NYT) with non-trivial coverage of his coaching various Ivy-league crews, so he is on very solid ground with the GNG. I'm not so sure about Buntine where the only GNG sources are obituaries; I would like to get an experienced editor or two to comment on how obituaries are generally treated w.r.t. notability.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Yeti Hunter: Thank you so much for your very constructive comments, however, using the guideline for track-and-field coaches, I believe, is not appropriate for this articles subject and, instead, WP:NCOLLATH should be used and that says: coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. So then the question becomes has this coach been the subject of non-trivial media coverage? And the answer to that is yes as evidenced by his obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald ^[1] that says: He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College. Next, and as evidenced by the facts, during his years at Newington College, where he was the rowing coach, 7 of their rowers became Olympic medal winners. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Picomtn: Buntine was not a college-level coach. I have dropped a note at WP:EAR to ask about using obituaries as a basis for notability; will weigh back in after getting advice there. Cheers, Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi @Yeti Hunter: Now I’m really confused. With Geelong College saying Bob Buntine is best known as a teacher and talented rowing coach at Newington College, Sydney where he was Deputy Headmaster for over 20 years until his retirement in 1996. ^[1] and The Sydney Morning Herald ^[2] saying He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College, how can it be stated that he was not a college-level coach?

@Picomtn: WP:NCOLLATH refers to "college" in the American sense, ie tertiary education institutions. While some of Buntine's schools might have "college" in their name, they are actually high schools - not directly comparable. –Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am advised that obituaries are generally considered ok only if published in the main body of the paper, by employed journalists. This is not the case, and in any case the content of the obituary does not point to any assumed notability under WP:TEACHER or WP:NHSPHSATH. Therefore, delete (I'll repeat my suggestion to migrate to a genealogy wiki like Familypedia, for which this content seems perfect with multiple family connections mentioned.). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG having a substantial body of non-trivial coverage in mainstream sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NHSPHSATH. We've got an obit in the Sydney Morning Herald that's clearly not a reliable source. When the SMH prints a news article about a recently deceased person, rather than an obit placed by a third party, they appear to carry the article in the mix with their other main articles. The dedicated obituaries page where this appears is within the SMH's "Comment, Opinion, Writers" section, which consists of opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and obituaries. This indicates that obits published in that section are reader-submitted, presumably paid for, and not subject to editorial oversight or journalistic writing in the same way that a main article would be, and therefore it's inappropriate to consider it a reliable source. WP:NHSPHSATH applies, rather than WP:NCOLLATH, because, while Buntine was a coach at Newington College, that school is a boarding school for boys, and not a post-secondary institution, which is the level of athletics NCOLLATH was designed to address. If we consider this either within the scope of GNG or NHSPHSATH, we have a case of a gentleman who does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is ill informed. The SMH does not publish paid obituaries. Obituaries and death notices are quite different things. The Herald published an obituary of Robert Buntine. If you go to the Herald website to "Comment" and drop down the box "Obituaries" you will see where the Buntine obituary was published. It has the most recent obits and this statement: "Obituaries are written by Herald staff or contributors, but we welcome information from relatives and friends. Contact the obituaries editor on (02) 9282 2742 or timelines@smh.com.au. Click here for information on death notices, finding archived obituaries and buying reproductions of published Fairfax content." That was where and how the obituary was published. You may not agree with its decision to print certain obituaries but please don't make up theories about editorial oversight at the SMH that have no basis in fact. As for rowing there are many ways to proceed to Olympic selection post secondary school but wether Newington is one type of school or otherwise is irrelevant. One fact remains and that is no fewer than seven rowers coached by Buntine won international honours in that sport. Castlemate (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Herald staff or contributors" - the Buntine obituary was apparently written by David Roberts, Jon Wickham and Michael Smee. All three are colleagues of Buntine's and not staff of the SMH; Roberts is head of the Newington secondary campus, Wickham was headmaster at Kings and Smee was headmaster at Newington; Wickham and Smee gave eulogies at his funeral (see Newington newsletter). The eulogy was not staff-written, and thus is on thin ground for GNG and independence from the subject. WP:NHSPHSATH requires coverage to "clearly" go beyond routine, and this does not do so. Neither does the fact that a number of his school rowers later went on to have successful sporting careers confer notability. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Herald, Sydney's major daily paper, were happy with the qualifications of the contributors and it was not a paid obituary. An obituary does not come out of thin air and who better to write it than an archivist (you have the wrong David Roberts) and the headmasters of two of the most distinguished schools in the country both honoured by the Order of Australia. All I ask is that contributors to this discussion get their facts right ... this was not a paid obituary. This was a substantial obituary written in a substantial newspaper about a substantial teacher/coach who played a substatial role in the sporting lives of seven substantial international/Olympic medalist. This is not a trivial life nor is it a trivial obituary that supports it. Castlemate (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying it was a paid obituary, and certainly nobody is saying Buntine's life was trivial. I think of my own high-school rowing coach and what a remarkable impact he had on my life. But is he notable for Wikipedia? The obituary did not appear in the main section of the paper, and was not written by SMH journalists. That makes it at best borderline WP:ROUTINE, and for a high-school coach we need better than borderline. The seven olympic medalists may be notable, but Buntine does not WP:INHERIT that notability - he has to be independently notable. I'm afraid it does not look like he is. -Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared in Timelines which is the main obituary section of the paper. Please desist from saying otherwise as it is wrong. The vast majority of obituaries in the Herald are not written by SMH staff but by other contributors. The compararison to your teacher is trivial as you do not assert that he had an obituary printed in a major city based daily paper and he did not coach those that went on to Olympic careers. Throw all the Wikipedia conventions at this topic that you can find but stop incorrectly asserting that this is somehow a less than normal published obituary in the SMH. It is what it is ... an SMH Obituary.Castlemate (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's in the main obits section of the paper's website, and not written by a journalist with the paper. That's not a reliable source. The question of whether it's paid or unpaid is only one factor in the analysis of whether an obituary is a reliable source. Coverage in unreliable sources like this sort of obituary will not be seen as contributing to the significant coverage prong of WP:GNG. Furthermore, as has been noted, this gentleman was a rowing coach at a primary or secondary school, which means that WP:NCOLLATH does not apply. WP:PROF hasn't been shown to apply either. From the guideline: School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. Rather, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. There is no sport-specific guideline for rowing, though this doesn't really matter, considering the sport-specific notability guidelines only refer to professional athletes; school athletics are, by definition, at the amateur level. As far as Olympic-level participation, my understanding here is that Buntine was never an Olympic rowing team's coach or trainer, but had people he coached or trained go on to participate in the Olympics later in life. That does not confer notability either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source-by-source breakdown from what's in the article, and why I would advise the closing admin to discount the !votes that merely say he has significant coverage:

1. "Bob Buntine: Beloved teacher coached rowers to historic victories": Unreliable obituary. Moreover, indicates that Buntine never coached or participated in the Olympics himself.
2. "Buntine, Walter Murray (1866–1953)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his paternal grandfather. Does not mention the article subject at all.
3. "Buntine, Gladys Selby (Jim) (1901–1992)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his mother. Does not mention the article subject at all.
4. "BUNTINE, Robert Walter (1929-2014)", Heritage Guide to The Geelong College: Short memorial article hosted by a former employer. It does rely on the SMH obit, which harms its independence, but it's a secondary source, so it would probably contribute to the coverage under GNG.
5. "Inspirational high-flier": SMH book review. Does not mention Buntine whatsoever.
6. "King's wins rowing after 47 years": Coverage of the King's School (secondary school) rowing team, not of Buntine himself. Buntine gets mentioned in one sentence. Does not contribute to GNG, does not contribute to WP:NHSPHSATH.
7. The King's Herald for 21 March 2014: Unreliable school newsletter. These are essentially marketing materials for donors and parents. Probably not independent coverage.
8. Google.com.au: Google's landing page has nothing to do with this article.
9. Australian honours for Michael Harvey Smee: Doesn't mention Buntine whatsoever.
10. "Great Master, Educator and Coach brought victory across GPS Rowing": Unreliable school blog post. Not independent coverage. Does not appear to provide significant coverage either, and certainly nothing that other sources don't also provide.
11. Rowing Australia profile for James Chapman: Does not mention Buntine.
12. Olympic record for Robert Jahrling: Does not mention Buntine.
13. Olympic record for Matthew Long: Does not mention Buntine.
14. Olympic record for Geoff Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
15. Olympic record for James Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
16. Olympic record for Steve Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
17. Australian Olympic Committee profile for Richard Wearne: Does not mention Buntine.
18. Broughton House history page: Does not mention Buntine.

At best we have one source we might call reliable, secondary, and independent, but which I doubt the coverage could be called significant. This high school-level rowing coach simply does not meet GNG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since nobody else has added to the discussion, I will just comment for the closing admin that every "keep" argument has boiled down to two main themes:

• He coached now-notable rowers when they were schoolboys, therefore he is notable (a violation of WP:INHERIT)
• His obituary was published in a major newspaper, therefore he passes GNG (not true as the obit was written by Buntine's colleagues, failing WP:INDEPENDENT and thus WP:RS; also, non-staffwritten obits are usually considered WP:ROUTINE).

In any any case, the article fails to make an assertion of notability - all Buntine's achievements as a high-school teacher, headmaster, deputy-head and sporting coach, whilst noble, are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The continuing misinformation of contributors in this discussion is growing very tiring. Others have added to this discussion since the last contributor commented and have indeed added and reconsidered Keeps. Yeti Hunter clearly knows nothing about the obituaries in the SMH as they are often written by non-staff ... they are often written by people who knew the subject. The Buntine obituary was written by David Roberts, former Director of NSW State Records (1998-2008), Michael Smee OAM a retired headmaster, Dr Timothy Hawkes OAM a current headmaster. Yes they knew Buntine but unlike this discussion knowing something about what you are writing is usually considered a bonus in the wider community. The obituary used is in no way second rate. The SMH is still the paper of record for the city of Sydney ... it is still a lot more reliable than Wikipedia. Others may quote any Wikipedia policy they like but the number of Keeps on this page say it all. A schoolmaster who has coached the number of international champions that Buntine coached is notable. He was not an Olympian nor an Olympic coach. He coached schoolboys at the highest level of schoolboy rowing. If you need to justify it then develop a policy to do so but there are more people in this community who want this bio in than there are those that want it out. I only ask whoever closes this discussion to do so with a great deal of care as much of what you read on this page is Nonsense. Castlemate (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from insulting my (and others') good-faith contributions to this discussion. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been shown to be notable enough. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Sydney Morning Herald source makes it clear to me that this article passes WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Changing to userfy... Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus to keep, just a reluctance on my part to engage with naked contradiction. Most keep !voters have merely asserted that it passes GNG with no discussion. One commenter above even suggest that the article has good potential for expansion (per WP:HEY) - how exactly? No matter how much detail about Buntine's high-school teaching and coaching career is added, he will remain fundamentally non-notable. WP:NHSPHSATH requires high-school athletes (and presumably, coaches) to have coverage that "clearly" goes beyond routine, and is independent. The SMH obituary on which the argument for notability rests is neither. All the other sources are irrelevant for GNG, and the fact that it is well written and wikified has no bearing on notability - WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK come to mind. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Buntine appears to have been an important person, but I don't think notable. As per above, the obit in SMH was written by collegues and is the main source of info. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I should go into a bit more detail. I think that all of the keep arguments have no grounds. The arguments towards keep consist of:

1) He coached rowers who went on to become olympians (this is also true of my netball and swim coaches).

2) The obit in the SMH makes him notable. (as per Yeti Hunter - violation of WP:INHERIT). I also know people who have made it to the Age/SMH. I don't think they are notable. If this makes a person have significant coverage then I and many people I know would be eligible for a Wikipedia page.

3) Furthermore, there seems to be a slant in the article towards subject's genealogy, which does not make him any more notable. Refs include fam history sites and author wanted to make article on family (see WP:BIOFAMILY). Article starts off with "third generation Australian" mentioned. He may have notable relatives, but this does not make present subject notable.

Finally I would like to stress that if this person is notable, then most people would be. For example, one of my relatives has taught many famous and influential people, one good example is actor Cate Blanchett, but also the sons and daughters of European, American and Chinese diplomats and politicians. He has written text books that sold very well and also has been in the newspaper many times. He's also worked as a journalist and co-ordinating unit lecturer at a major Australian university. He is from a very wealthy and influential family in a region and who were also some of the earliest settlers and were crucial to the development of that region. He is also related to the Murdoch family. He also lived on the same street as Julian Assange and John Safran. I could go on. He will never get a Wikipedia page. This person is not notable but he is still important to many people, just as Buntine was important to his colleagues and students. As per Yeti Hunter, maybe Castlemate could move this page to another place on the internet. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes me a ghastly inclusionist (not an accusation often thrown my way), but I've got to say your relative sounds at least potentially notable there. Also, I have been reading the Herald (and the obits) for years and I've never seen someone get a published obit who was not at least marginally notable. Can you provide one for a person who is unquestionably non-notable? I doubt it. Frickeg (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Frickeg, and I completely see your point! However, I believe that the best arguments on delete discussion pages are backed up by Wikipedia's notability guidelines (Wikipedia:N). Sorry if I caused any undue injury. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No undue injury at all! My point does go to WP:GNG since I believe in some cases a single, very reliable source is sufficient (especially for subjects where other sources are not likely to be online), but I understand others see things differently. Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's a lot of discussion about whether the Sydney Morning Herald obituary is to be regarded as a totally reliable source. However, still, that doesn't change the fact that said piece appears to be literally it as far as justifiable sources go. The rest of the numerous citations made in this article, as above users point out, are not appropriate. The Canberra Times report mentions Buntine in passing, in only one sentence no less, without giving details. The King's Herald newsletter may discuss his career in depth, yes, but its not at all your standard reliable source. Multiple citations such as the reference to the Australian Olympic Committee don't even mention Buntime's name. Beyond mere legalistic applications of Wiki rules, it's the spirit of the rules that's most important: What can one build a good article on if its subject doesn't have significant source coverage? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per TNT. This is hopelessly promotional and full of unsourced content, and would need to be completely rewritten to comply with policy. Zoiks. A loving tribute but very very far from anything that should exist in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that this person passes Wikipedia notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comments: 1. WP:HEY is not merely about future prospects for an article; the essay is more about how it has been improved despite efforts to delete it. 2. Being the headmaster of not one but two prestigious prep schools (or as they call them independent schools in Australia) ought to mean something for notability. 3. Closing admin, this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I plead guilty to having boring reasons to keep! 4. An obituary in a paper of record, if it provides significant coverage can be sufficient, along with three or more other ("multiple") sources, to prove a dead person's notability (WP:BLP requires higher standards, in effect). Some of the sources didn't mention him, so I'd seek better sources. 5. If he had coached a single Olympian, I'd say, "meh", run of the mill coach. However, he coached several future Olympians, which is notable in itself. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reality Check: Before an administrator tears down this "well written and wikified" bio please consider the inconsistency of notability in Wikipedia. I have just wiki linked Jim Buntine as Bob Buntine's mother and have discovered that Arnold Buntine, his father, has a bio as well. I wrote his mother's bio based on the assumption that her entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography gave her notability. Before you scream WP:INHERIT please stay with me as I'm not talking about inheriting notability although Wikipedia is riddled with. I didn't write a bio for his father because I knew that the deletionists would call for its removal within minutes, even though he is a notable headmaster. I then realised I didn't have to write the bio because it already exists due to the fact that Arnold played four (yes just four) games as an Australian rules footballer with St Kilda in the Victorian Football League in 1918. Now that is truly non-notable but nobody is calling for its deletion. Sadly given the poor standard of contributions and editing on Wikipedia nobody has realised that Arnold is in fact Dr Martyn Arnold Buntine ^[1] Headmaster of Geelong College. I'm sure that when I add the excellent reference that I have used here you will want the pre-existing bio deleted. It will be derided as secondary and not independent. For consistancy you will have to call for its deletion. I won't bother pointing out all the erroneous comments that have made recently but I will suggest that before you vote maybe you could read the article to see the improvements that have been made and the references that have been improved. But please no more anecdotes about all your friends/relatives who have had SMH/Age Obituaries written about them but aren't notable. Although I'm very keen to read about the netball and swim coaches who have not been notable but have coached Olympians. Who were the Olympians and how many of them were there. I'd like to write their bios just in case. Share this with us so we can debate their notability out in the open. Tell us who these strange hybrids are ... important but not notable. Most importantly could someone please tell the Sydney Morning Herald not to use "beloved" in the title of an obituary. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable. Semantics at Olympic levels. Thank you all for your good faith comments its been great fun sparring. Castlemate (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Move to draftspace (see below). Firstly I am a little taken aback at all the invective being hurled around here, and at aspersions being cast on the SMH obits. The Herald is one of the major newspapers in the country, and full, published obituaries (no matter who they are written by) are clear evidence of notability, even if people want to quibble about the reliability of the (in this case rather distinguished) authors. The SMH does not publish obituaries of people it does not consider sufficiently significant (there are plenty of very notable people who never get them). Bearian above makes excellent points. I would also point out that there are likely to be a lot of print sources for this kind of thing that have not been consulted above. Frickeg (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Bearian and Frickeg, I have to disagree:

• Buntine was a headmaster only once (at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange, NSW) and only deputy head at one of the two prestigious Sydney schools he taught at.
• A review of the SMH obit section] suggests that it does frequently include people who, while having led interesting and noble lives, do not establish a clear assertion of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. See e.g. Mother of seven had to venture so often into the unknown, an eloquently written farewell from a son to a mother.
• Coaching schoolboy rowers who went on to become Olympians years later does not confer a presumption of notability. At any rate, this fact is unverified OR. The sources only say that Buntine coached un-named future Olympians, or that such-and-such Olympians were alumni of Kings or Newington. Neither the SMH or school newsletter obituaries make any mention of coaching future Olympians.

If print sources are available that indicate a notabilty not evident in the online sources, I would gladly change my !vote. But the notability guidelines at WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:TEACHER do not suggest that such a presumption is justified. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I stand corrected. I hadn't seen that obit, and a closer look through the obit page does suggest these things are not uncommon (though by no means the norm). This throws me a bit - I've been using SMH obits as a good yardstick for notability for years now. My suspicion is that this is a recent development (cuts to journalists, perhaps?), but I may be wrong on that too. I'll have to consider this, so for the moment consider my !vote above less emphatic than it was. Frickeg (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I went into this wanting to vote keep, but I can't justify it. I searched through Australian newspapers on NewsBank and the only hit that was more than a passing mention was the SMH obit that has already been noted in this discussion. After reading through the analysis of that obit here, I don't think we can consider it independent, which is what the GNG requires. And without that obit, I don't think it can be said that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft space. There seem to be a number of factors. First, there is no assumed notability in the coach of a school team; it has to be proven by reliable sources. It's only college level coaches of important teams who can generally be assumed to be notable. Second, the SMH obit is not a reliable source. Reliable obituaries do not use the sort of extravagant language used here. There are only a few papers whose obits can be unquestionably used: for the 20th century, I know of only the NYTimes and The Times of London, though there probably are some non-English language ones also. Third, the notability of some members of a family does not make others in the family notable, nor does it make the family as a whole notable unless the family has been written about as a family. Fourth, there is no consistent practice here about the notability of headmasters of major schools, but we have been relatively reluctant to accept such articles except for the most famous. From the articles on them, I doubt that Wollaroi College is that famous, but it is possible that Newington College is--unfortunately, he was just a temporary headmaster. I'm making a guess here that his career as a coach may jsut possibly be important enough that other sources can be found, but probably at present the best course is to move to Draft space DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a compromise I can support. Frickeg (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy (moved from keep) as per DGG. The SMH source, as well as being unreliable, is pretty much the only coverage Robert has received. Fails GNG, but I think we could try moving this to draftspace. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 03:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on the article and the information referenced above, WP:EVENTUAL would seem likely for WP:ANYBIO point 2 ? Aoziwe (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No consensus: Not sure there can be another result at this time. Just stopped to check out the oldest open AFD and perused.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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